Advertisement

Considering Academia-Industry Projects Meta-characteristics in Runtime Verification Design

  • Christian ColomboEmail author
  • Gordon J. Pace
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11247)

Abstract

Runtime verification, with its practical applicability and myriad of theoretical challenges it still poses, has the potential to bridge the gap between academic research in the field of formal methods with the software industry. In order to facilitate this, it is useful to extrapolate success patterns from previous projects: Are certain characteristics of an industry-academia project a determining factor in the project’s success? How can runtime verification design decisions take into considerations project characteristics to improve the chances of success?

This paper attempts to shed some light on these questions by reflecting on five projects with two partners over the past ten years. A number of lessons emerge, perhaps the most poignant one being the need to think long term in setting mutually beneficial goals from which a strong working relationship can emerge.

References

  1. 1.
    Aksit, M., Tekinerdogan, B., Sozer, H., Safi, H.F., Ayas, M.: The DESARC method: an effective approach for university-industry cooperation, pp. 51–53. Institute of Research Engineers and Doctors, January 2015.  https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-038-5-10
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C.: The disappearing boundary between development-time and run-time. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 2010, at the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 7–11 November 2010, pp. 17–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cassar, I., Francalanza, A., Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: A survey of runtime monitoring instrumentation techniques. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Pre- and Post-Deployment Verification Techniques, PrePost@iFM, pp. 15–28 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Java-MOP: a monitoring oriented programming environment for Java. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 546–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_36CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G., Abela, P.: Safer asynchronous runtime monitoring using compensations. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 41(3), 269–294 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: Industrial experiences with runtime verification of financial transaction systems: lessons learnt and standing challenges. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 211–232. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Dynamic event-based runtime monitoring of real-time and contextual properties. In: Cofer, D., Fantechi, A. (eds.) FMICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5596, pp. 135–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03240-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: LARVA – safer monitoring of real-time java programs (tool paper). In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM 2009, Hanoi, Vietnam, 23–27 November 2009, pp. 33–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falcone, Y., Mounier, L., Fernandez, J.-C., Richier, J.-L.: Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 38(3), 223–262 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiczales, G.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2005), 15–21 May 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, p. 730 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. CoRR, abs/1507.01701 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niknafs, A., Berry, D.M.: An industrial case study of the impact of domain ignorance on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation. In: 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2013, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil, 15–19 July 2013, pp. 279–283 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta

Personalised recommendations