Clafer: Lightweight Modeling of Structure, Behaviour, and Variability

Embedded software is growing fast in size and complexity, leading to intimate mixture of complex architectures and complex control. Consequently, software specification requires modeling both structures and behaviour of systems. Unfortunately, existing languages do not integrate these aspects well, usually prioritizing one of them. It is common to develop a separate language for each of these facets. In this paper, we contribute Clafer: a small language that attempts to tackle this challenge. It combines rich structural modeling with state of the art behavioural formalisms. We are not aware of any other modeling language that seamlessly combines these facets common to system and software modeling. We show how Clafer, in a single unified syntax and semantics, allows capturing feature models (variability), component models, discrete control models (automata) and variability encompassing all these aspects. The language is built on top of first order logic with quantifiers over basic entities (for modeling structures) combined with linear temporal logic (for modeling behaviour). On top of this semantic foundation we build a simple but expressive syntax, enriched with carefully selected syntactic expansions that cover hierarchical modeling, associations, automata, scenarios, and Dwyer's property patterns. We evaluate Clafer using a power window case study, and comparing it against other notations that substantially overlap with its scope (SysML, AADL, Temporal OCL and Live Sequence Charts), discussing benefits and perils of using a single notation for the purpose

UML Interactions Meet State Machines - An Institutional Approach

UML allows the multi-viewpoint modelling of systems. One important question is whether an interaction as specified by a sequence diagram can be actually realised in the system. Here, the latter is specified as a combination of several state machines (one for each lifeline in the interaction) by a composite structure diagram. In order to tackle this question, we formalise the involved UML diagram types as institutions, and their relations as institution (co)morphisms

Formal aspects of component software

This is the pre-proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS'09)

A Formal Architectural Description Language based on Symbolic Transition Systems and Modal Logic

International audienceComponent Based Software Engineering has now emerged as a discipline for system development. After years of battle between component platforms, the need for means to abstract away from specific implementation details is now recognized. This paves the way for model driven approaches (such as MDE) but also for the more older Architectural Description Language (ADL) paradigm. In this paper we present KADL, an ADL based on the Korrigan formal language which supports the following features: integration of fully formal behaviours and data types, expressive component composition mechanisms through the use of modal logic, specification readability through graphical notations, and dedicated architectural analysis techniques. Key Words: Architectural Description Language, Component Based Software Engineering, Mixed Formal Specifications, Symbolic Transition Systems, Abstract Data Types, Modal Logic Glue, Graphical Notations, Verification

Traceability of Requirements and Software Architecture for Change Management

At the present day, software systems get more and more complex. The requirements of software systems change continuously and new requirements emerge frequently. New and/or modified requirements are integrated with the existing ones, and adaptations to the architecture and source code of the system are made. The process of integration of the new/modified requirements and adaptations to the software system is called change management. The size and complexity of software systems make change management costly and time consuming. To reduce the cost of changes, it is important to apply change management as early as possible in the software development cycle. Requirements traceability is considered crucial in change management for establishing and maintaining consistency between software development artifacts. It is the ability to link requirements back to stakeholders’ rationales and forward to corresponding design artifacts, code, and test cases. When changes for the requirements of the software system are proposed, the impact of these changes on other requirements, design elements and source code should be traced in order to determine parts of the software system to be changed. Determining the impact of changes on the parts of development artifacts is called change impact analysis. Change impact analysis is applicable to many development artifacts like requirements documents, detailed design, source code and test cases. Our focus is change impact analysis in requirements and software architecture. The need for change impact analysis is observed in both requirements and software architecture. When a change is introduced to a requirement, the requirements engineer needs to find out if any other requirement related to the changed requirement is impacted. After determining the impacted requirements, the software architect needs to identify the impacted architectural elements by tracing the changed requirements to software architecture. It is hard, expensive and error prone to manually trace impacted requirements and architectural elements from the changed requirements. There are tools and approaches that automate change impact analysis like IBM Rational RequisitePro and DOORS. In most of these tools, traces are just simple relations and their semantics is not considered. Due to the lack of semantics of traces in these tools, all requirements and architectural elements directly or indirectly traced from the changed requirement are candidate impacted. The requirements engineer has to inspect all these candidate impacted requirements and architectural elements to identify changes if there are any. In this thesis we address the following problems which arise in performing change impact analysis for requirements and software architecture. Explosion of impacts in requirements after a change in requirements. In practice, requirements documents are often textual artifacts with implicit structure. Most of the relations among requirements are not given explicitly. There is a lack of precise definition of relations among requirements in most tools and approaches. Due to the lack of semantics of requirements relations, change impact analysis may produce high number of false positive and false negative impacted requirements. A requirements engineer may have to analyze all requirements in the requirements document for a single change. This may result in neglecting the actual impact of a change. Manual, expensive and error prone trace establishment. Considerable research has been devoted to relating requirements and design artifacts with source code. Less attention has been paid to relating Requirements (R) with Architecture (A) by using well-defined semantics of traces. Designing architecture based on requirements is a problem solving process that relies on human experience and creativity, and is mainly manual. The software architect may need to manually assign traces between R&A. Manual trace assignment is time-consuming, expensive and error prone. The assigned traces might be incomplete and invalid. Explosion of impacts in software architecture after a change in requirements. Due to the lack of semantics of traces between R&A, change impact analysis may produce high number of false positive and false negative impacted architectural elements. A software architect may have to analyze all architectural elements in the architecture for a single requirements change. In this thesis we propose an approach that reduces the explosion of impacts in R&A. The approach employs semantic information of traces and is supported by tools. We consider that every relation between software development artifacts or between elements in these artifacts can play the role of a trace for a certain traceability purpose like change impact analysis. We choose Model Driven Engineering (MDE) as a solution platform for our approach. MDE provides a uniform treatment of software artifacts (e.g. requirements documents, software design and test documents) as models. It also enables using different formalisms to reason about development artifacts described as models. To give an explicit structure to requirements documents and treat requirements, architecture and traces in a uniform way, we use metamodels and models with formally defined semantics. The thesis provides the following contributions: A modeling language for definition of requirements models with formal semantics. The language is defined according to the MDE principles by defining a metamodel. It is based on a survey about the most commonly found requirements types and relation types. With this language, the requirements engineer can explicitly specify the requirements and the relations among them. The semantics of these entities is given in First Order Logic (FOL) and allows two activities. First, new relations among requirements can be inferred from the initial set of relations. Second, requirements models can be automatically checked for consistency of the relations. Tool for Requirements Inferencing and Consistency Checking (TRIC) is developed to support both activities. The defined semantics is used in a technique for change impact analysis in requirements models. A change impact analysis technique for requirements using semantics of requirements relations and requirements change types. The technique aims at solving the problem of explosion of impacts in requirements when semantics of requirements relations is missing. The technique uses formal semantics of requirements relations and requirements change types. A classification of requirements changes based on the structure of a textual requirement is given and formalized. The semantics of requirements change types is based on FOL. We support three activities for impact analysis. First, the requirements engineer proposes changes according to the change classification before implementing the actual changes. Second, the requirements engineer indentifies the propagation of the changes to related requirements. The change alternatives in the propagation are determined based on the semantics of change types and requirements relations. Third, possible contradicting changes are identified. We extend TRIC with a support for these activities. The tool automatically determines the change propagation paths, checks the consistency of the changes, and suggests alternatives for implementing the change. A technique that provides trace establishment between R&A by using architecture verification and semantics of traces. It is hard, expensive and error prone to manually establish traces between R&A. We present an approach that provides trace establishment by using architecture verification together with semantics of requirements relations and traces. We use a trace metamodel with commonly used trace types. The semantics of traces is formalized in FOL. Software architectures are expressed in the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL). AADL is provided with a formal semantics expressed in Maude. The Maude tool set allows simulation and verification of architectures. The first way to establish traces is to use architecture verification techniques. A given requirement is reformulated as a property in terms of the architecture. The architecture is executed and a state space is produced. This execution simulates the behavior of the system on the architectural level. The property derived from the requirement is checked by the Maude model checker. Traces are generated between the requirement and the architectural components used in the verification of the property. The second way to establish traces is to use the requirements relations together with the semantics of traces. Requirements relations are reflected in the connections among the traced architectural elements based on the semantics of traces. Therefore, new traces are inferred from existing traces by using requirements relations. We use semantics of requirements relations and traces to both generate/validate traces and generate/validate requirements relations. There is a tool support for our approach. The tool provides the following: (1) generation/validation of traces by using requirements relations and/or verification of architecture, (2) generation/validation of requirements relations by using traces. A change impact analysis technique for software architecture using architecture verification and semantics of traces between R&A. The software architect needs to identify the impacted architectural elements after requirements change. We present a change impact analysis technique for software architecture using architecture verification and semantics of traces. The technique is semi-automatic and requires participation of the software architect. Our technique has two parts. The first part is to identify the architectural elements that implement the system properties to which proposed requirements changes are introduced. By having the formal semantics of requirements relations and traces, we identify which parts of software architecture are impacted by a proposed change in requirements. We have extended TRIC for determining candidate impacted architectural elements. The second part of our technique is to propose possible changes for software architecture when the software architecture does not satisfy the new and/or changed requirements. The technique is based on architecture verification. The output of verification is a counter example if the requirements are not satisfied. The counter example is used with a classification of architectural changes in order to propose changes in the software architecture. These changes produce a new version of the architecture that possibly satisfies the new or the changed requirements

Early aspects: aspect-oriented requirements engineering and architecture design

This paper reports on the third Early Aspects: Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design Workshop, which has been held in Lancaster, UK, on March 21, 2004. The workshop included a presentation session and working sessions in which the particular topics on early aspects were discussed. The primary goal of the workshop was to focus on challenges to defining methodical software development processes for aspects from early on in the software life cycle and explore the potential of proposed methods and techniques to scale up to industrial applications

Extending relational model transformations to better support the verification of increasingly autonomous systems

Over the past decade the capabilities of autonomous systems have been steadily increasing. Unmanned systems are moving from systems that are predominantly remotely operated, to systems that include a basic decision making capability. This is a trend that is expected to continue with autonomous systems making decisions in increasingly complex environments, based on more abstract, higher-level missions and goals. These changes have significant implications for how these systems should be designed and engineered. Indeed, as the goals and tasks these systems are to achieve become more abstract, and the environments they operate in become more complex, are current approaches to verification and validation sufficient? Domain Specific Modelling is a key technology for the verification of autonomous systems. Verifying these systems will ultimately involve understanding a significant number of domains. This includes goals/tasks, environments, systems functions and their associated performance. Relational Model Transformations provide a means to utilise, combine and check models for consistency across these domains. In this thesis an approach that utilises relational model transformation technologies for systems verification, Systems MDD, is presented along with the results of a series of trials conducted with an existing relational model transformation language (QVT-Relations). These trials identified a number of problems with existing model transformation languages, including poorly or loosely defined semantics, differing interpretations of specifications across different tools and the lack of a guarantee that a model transformation would generate a model that was compliant with its associated meta-model. To address these problems, two related solvers were developed to assist with realising the Systems MDD approach. The first solver, MMCS, is concerned with partial model completion, where a partial model is defined as a model that does not fully conform with its associated meta-model. It identifies appropriate modifications to be made to a partial model in order to bring it into full compliance. The second solver, TMPT, is a relational model transformation engine that prioritises target models. It considers multiple interpretations of a relational transformation specification, chooses an interpretation that results in a compliant target model (if one exists) and, optionally, maximises some other attribute associated with the model. A series of experiments were conducted that applied this to common transformation problems in the published literature