Architectural specification and analysis with XCD: The aegis combat system case study

Despite promoting precise modelling and analysis, architecture description languages (ADLs) have not yet gained the expected momentum. Indeed, practitioners prefer using far less formal languages like UML, thus hindering formal verification of models. One of the main issues with ADLs derives from process algebras which practitioners view as having a steep learning curve. In this paper, we introduce a new ADL called XCD which enables designers to model their software architectures through a Design-by-Contract approach, as for example in the Java Modelling Language (JML). We illustrate how XCD can be used in architectural modelling and analysis using the Aegis combat software system

A Design-by-Contract based Approach for Architectural Modelling and Analysis

Research on software architectures has been active since the early nineties, leading to a number of different architecture description languages (ADL). Given their importance in facilitating the communication of crucial system properties to different stakeholders and their analysis early on in the development of a system this is understandable. However, practitioners rarely use ADLs, and, instead, they insist on using the Unified Modelling Language (UML) for specifying software architectures. I attribute this to three main issues that have not been addressed altogether by the existing ADLs. Firstly, in their attempt to support formal analysis, current ADLs employ formal notations (i.e., mostly process algebras) that are rarely used among practitioners. Secondly, many ADLs focus on components in specifying software architectures, neglecting the first-class specification of complex interaction protocols as connectors. They view connectors as simple interaction links that merely identify the communicating components and their basic communication style (e.g., procedure call). So, complex interaction protocols are specified as part of components, which however reduce the re-usability of both. Lastly, there are also some ADLs that do support complex connectors. However, these include a centralised glue element in their connector structure that imposes a global ordering of actions on the interacting components. Such global constraints are not always realisable in a decentralised manner by the components that participate in these protocols. In this PhD thesis, I introduce a new architecture description language called XCD that supports the formal specification of software architectures without employing a complex formal notation and offers first-class connectors for maximising the re-use of components and protocols. Furthermore, by omitting any units for specifying global constraints (i.e., glue), the architecture specifications in XCD are guaranteed to be realisable in a decentralised manner. I show in the thesis how XCD extends Design-by-Contract (DbC) for specifying (i) protocol-independent components and (ii) complex connectors, which can impose only local constraints to guarantee their realisability. Use of DbC will hopefully make it easier for practitioners to use the language, compared to languages using process algebras. I also show the precise translation of XCD into SPIN’s formal ProMeLa language for formally verifying software architectures that (i) services offered by components are always used correctly, (ii) the component behaviours are always complete, (iii)there are no race-conditions, (iv) there is no deadlock, and (v) for components having event communications, there is no overflow of event buffers. Finally, I evaluate XCD via five well-known case studies and illustrate XCD’s enhanced modularity, expressive DbC-based notation, and guaranteed realisability for architecture specifications

Air Traffic Management Abbreviation Compendium

As in all fields of work, an unmanageable number of abbreviations are used today in aviation for terms, definitions, commands, standards and technical descriptions. This applies in general to the areas of aeronautical communication, navigation and surveillance, cockpit and air traffic control working positions, passenger and cargo transport, and all other areas of flight planning, organization and guidance. In addition, many abbreviations are used more than once or have different meanings in different languages. In order to obtain an overview of the most common abbreviations used in air traffic management, organizations like EUROCONTROL, FAA, DWD and DLR have published lists of abbreviations in the past, which have also been enclosed in this document. In addition, abbreviations from some larger international projects related to aviation have been included to provide users with a directory as complete as possible. This means that the second edition of the Air Traffic Management Abbreviation Compendium includes now around 16,500 abbreviations and acronyms from the field of aviation

Social work with airports passengers

Social work at the airport is in to offer to passengers social services. The main methodological position is that people are under stress, which characterized by a particular set of characteristics in appearance and behavior. In such circumstances passenger attracts in his actions some attention. Only person whom he trusts can help him with the documents or psychologically