Advertisement

Living with Uncertainty in the Age of Runtime Models

  • Holger Giese
  • Nelly Bencomo
  • Liliana Pasquale
  • Andres J. Ramirez
  • Paola Inverardi
  • Sebastian Wätzoldt
  • Siobhán Clarke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8378)

Abstract

Uncertainty can be defined as the difference between information that is represented in an executing system and the information that is both measurable and available about the system at a certain point in its life-time. A software system can be exposed to multiple sources of uncertainty produced by, for example, ambiguous requirements and unpredictable execution environments. A runtime model is a dynamic knowledge base that abstracts useful information about the system, its operational context and the extent to which the system meets its stakeholders’ needs. A software system can successfully operate in multiple dynamic contexts by using runtime models that augment information available at design-time with information monitored at runtime. This chapter explores the role of runtime models as a means to cope with uncertainty. To this end, we introduce a well-suited terminology about models, runtime models and uncertainty and present a state-of-the-art summary on model-based techniques for addressing uncertainty both at development- and runtime. Using a case study about robot systems we discuss how current techniques and the MAPE-K loop can be used together to tackle uncertainty. Furthermore, we propose possible extensions of the MAPE-K loop architecture with runtime models to further handle uncertainty at runtime. The chapter concludes by identifying key challenges, and enabling technologies for using runtime models to address uncertainty, and also identifies closely related research communities that can foster ideas for resolving the challenges raised.

Keywords

State Machine Robot System Epistemic Uncertainty Planning Step Runtime Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Galbraith, J.: Designing Complex Organizations. Organization development. Addison-Wesley (1973)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noppen, J.: Imperfect Information in Software Design Processes. PhD thesis, University of Twente (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramirez, A., Jensen, A., Cheng, B.H.C., Knoester, D.: Automatically exploring how uncertainty impacts behavior of dynamically adaptive systems. In: 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 568–571 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whittle, J., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Chen, B.H.C., Bruel, J.M.: RELAX: Incorporating uncertainty into the specification of self-adaptive systems. In: The Proceedings of the 17th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2009), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 79–88. IEEE Computer Society (September 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welsh, K., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N.: Towards Requirements Aware Systems: Run-time Resolution of Design-time Assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2011, Kansas, USA, November 6-10. ACM (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramirez, A.J., Cheng, B.H.C., Bencomo, N., Sawyer, P.: Relaxing claims: Coping with uncertainty while evaluating assumptions at run time. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 53–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bencomo, N., Belaggoun, A., Issarny, V.: Dynamic decision networks for decision-making in self-adaptive systems: A case study. In: Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laffont, J.J.: The Economics of Uncertainty and Information. The MIT Press (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, http://www.auai.org/
  10. 10.
    Wätzoldt, S., Neumann, S., Benke, F., Giese, H.: Integrated Software Development for Embedded Robotic Systems. In: Noda, I., Ando, N., Brugali, D., Kuffner, J.J. (eds.) SIMPAR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7628, pp. 335–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng, S.W., Garlan, D.: Handling Uncertainty in Autonomic Systems. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Living with Uncertainties (IWLU 2007), Co-located with the 22nd International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2007), Atlanta, GA, USA, November 5 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A Goal Modeling Framework for Self-Contextualizable Software. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, pp. 326–338. Springer-Verlag (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling Domain Variability in Requirements Engineering with Contexts. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 115–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer-Verlag (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chung, L., Cesar, J., Leite, S.P.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. John Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albarghouthi, A., Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: From Under-Approximations to Over-Approximations and Back. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 157–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mula, J., Poler, R., Garciasabater, J., Lario, F.: Models for production planning under uncertainty: A review. International Journal of Production Economics 103(1), 271–285 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blair, G., Bencomo, N., France, R.B.: Models@run.time. Computer 42(10), 22–27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogel, T., Seibel, A., Giese, H.: The Role of Models and Megamodels at Runtime. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.M.: The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer 36(1), 41–50 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morin, B., Fleurey, F., Bencomo, N., Jézéquel, J.-M., Solberg, A., Dehlen, V., Blair, G.S.: An aspect-oriented and model-driven approach for managing dynamic variability. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 782–796. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morin, B., Barais, O., Nain, G., Jézéquel, J.M.: Taming dynamically adaptive systems using models and aspects. In: ICSE, pp. 122–132 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bencomo, N., Whittle, J., Sawyer, P., Finkelstein, A., Letier, E.: Requirements reflection: Requirements as runtime entities. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 199–202. ACM (May 2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Letier, E., Finkelstein, A.: Requirements-aware systems: A research agenda for re self-adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp. 95–103 (September 2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salehie, M., Tahvildari, L.: Self-adaptive software: Landscape and research challenges. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 4(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiser, M.: The computer for the 21st century. SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 3(3), 3–11 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baldauf, M., Dustdar, S., Rosenberg, F.: A survey on context-aware systems. International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing 2(4), 263–277 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bellavista, P., Corradi, A., Fanelli, M., Foschini, L.: A Survey on Context Data Distribution for Mobile Ubiquitous Systems. ACM Computing Surveys (2013) (to appear)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Souza, V.S., Lapouchnian, A., Robinson, W.N., Mylopoulos, J.: Awareness requirements for adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, pp. 60–69. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feather, M.S., Fickas, S., van Lamsweerde, A., Ponsard, C.: Reconciling system requirements and runtime behavior. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, pp. 50–59. IEEE Computer Society (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fickas, S., Feather, M.S.: Requirements monitoring in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 140–147. IEEE Computer Society (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silva Souza, V., Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: (Requirement) Evolution Requirements for Adaptive Systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposyum of Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. IEEE Computer Society (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baresi, L., Pasquale, L., Spoletini, P.: Fuzzy goals for requirements-driven adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE, Sydney, Australia, pp. 125–134. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ali, R., Solís, C., Omoronyia, I., Salehie, M., Nuseibeh, B.: Social Adaptation - When Software Gives Users a Voice. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 75–84. SciTePress (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maes, P.: Concepts and Experiments in Computational Reflection. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, OOPSLA 1987, pp. 147–155. ACM, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McManus, H., Hastings, D.: A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty and its Mitigation and Exploitation in Complex Systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering, INCOSE 2005, Rochester, NY (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garlan, D.: Software engineering in an uncertain world. In: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 2010, pp. 125–128. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Humphrey, W.: A Discipline for Software Engineering. SEI Series in Software Engineering Series. Addison Wesley Professional (1995)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lehman, M.M., Belady, L.A.: Program evolution: Processes of software change. Academic Press Professional, Inc., San Diego (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parnas, D.L.: Software aging. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1994, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp. 279–287. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Welsh, K., Sawyer, P.: Understanding the scope of uncertainty in dynamically adaptive systems. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rabin, M.O.: Probabilistic automata. Information and Control 6(3), 230–245 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Piech, H., Siedlecka-Lamch, O.: Interval probabilities of state transitions in probabilistic automata. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7268, pp. 688–696. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Torres, R., Bencomo, N., Astudillo, H.: Mitigating the obsolescence of quality specifications models in service-based systems. In: MoDRE, pp. 68–76 (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xie, L.L., Guo, L.: How much uncertainty can be dealt with by feedback? IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 45(12), 2203–2217 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brun, Y., et al.: Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems through Feedback Loops. In: Cheng, B.H.C., de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J. (eds.) Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 5525, pp. 48–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cheng, S.W., Garlan, D.: Handling Uncertainty in Autonomic Systems. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Living with Uncertainties (IWLU 2007), Co-located with the 22nd International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2007), Atlanta, GA, USA, November 5 (2007), http://godzilla.cs.toronto.edu/IWLU/program.html
  50. 50.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Self-Managed Systems: an Architectural Challenge. In: FOSE 2007: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pp. 259–268. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Welsh, K., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N.: Run-time Resolution of Uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, Italy, August 29-September 2, pp. 355–356 (2011)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Whittle, J., Letier, E., Finkelstein, A.: Requirements-Aware Systems: A Research Agenda for RE for Self-adaptive Systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, September 27-October 1, pp. 95–103 (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Autili, M., Cortellessa, V., Di Ruscio, D., Inverardi, P., Pelliccione, P., Tivoli, M.: Integration architecture synthesis for taming uncertainty in the digital space. In: Calinescu, R., Garlan, D. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2012. LNCS, vol. 7539, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ephraim, Y., Merhav, N.: Hidden markov processes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48(6), 1518–1569 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cheung, L., Roshandel, R., Medvidovic, N., Golubchik, L.: Early prediction of software component reliability. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2008, pp. 111–120. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cordy, M., Classen, A., Perrouin, G., Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In: ICSE, pp. 672–682. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hirschfeld, R., Costanza, P., Nierstrasz, O.: Context-oriented Programming. Journal of Object Technology 7(3), 125–151 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Autili, M., Benedetto, P.D., Inverardi, P.: Hybrid approach for resource-based comparison of adaptable java applications. Science of Computer Programming (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cheng, B.H.C., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Whittle, J.: A goal-based modeling approach to develop requirements of an adaptive system with environmental uncertainty. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 468–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mishra, K., Trivedi, K.S.: Uncertainty propagation through software dependability models. In: Dohi, T., Cukic, B. (eds.) ISSRE, pp. 80–89. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Caporuscio, M., Marco, A.D., Inverardi, P.: Model-based System Reconfiguration for Dynamic Performance Management. Journal of Systems and Software 80(4), 455–473 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Inverardi, P., Mori, M.: A Software Lifecycle Process to Support Consistent Evolutions. In: de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Müller, H.A., Shaw, M. (eds.) Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 7475, pp. 239–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Neil, M., Fenton, N., Tailor, M.: Using bayesian networks to model expected and unexpected operational losses. International Journal on Risk Analysis 25(4), 963–972 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Filieri, A., Ghezzi, C., Tamburrelli, G.: A formal approach to adaptive software: Continuous assurance of non-functional requirements. Formal Asp. Comput. 24(2), 163–186 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morin, B., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.M., Fleurey, F., Solberg, A.: Models@ Run.time to Support Dynamic Adaptation. IEEE Computer 42(10), 44–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cetina, C., Giner, P., Fons, J., Pelechano, V.: Autonomic computing through reuse of variability models at runtime: The case of smart homes. Computer 42(10), 37–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Georgas, J., van der Hoek, A., Taylor, R.: Using architectural models to manage and visualize runtime adaptation. Computer 42(10), 52–60 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Song, H., Huang, G., Chauvel, F., Xiong, Y., Hu, Z., Sun, Y., Mei, H.: Supporting runtime software architecture: A bidirectional-transformation-based approach. Journal of Systems and Software 84(5), 711–723 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vogel, T., Giese, H.: Adaptation and Abstract Runtime Models. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS 2010) at the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2010), Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 39–48. ACM (May 2010)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bencomo, N., Bennaceur, A., Grace, P., Blair, G., Issarny, V.: The role of models@run.time in supporting on-the-fly interoperability. Springer Computing (2013); special issue Models@runt.timeGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hao, R., Morin, B., Berre, A.J.: A semi-automatic behavioral mediation approach based on models@runtime. In: Models@run.time, pp. 67–71 (2012)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mori, M., Li, F., Dorn, C., Inverardi, P., Dustdar, S.: Leveraging State-Based User Preferences in Context-Aware Reconfigurations for Self-Adaptive Systems. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 286–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hong, J., Suh, E., Kim, S.J.: Context-aware systems: A literature review and classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(4), 8509–8522 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S., Barringer, H.: Component verification with automatically generated assumptions. Autom. Softw. Eng. 12(3), 297–320 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D., Qu, H.: Assume-guarantee verification for probabilistic systems. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 23–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bucchiarone, A., Marconi, A., Pistore, M., Raik, H.: Dynamic Adaptation of Fragment-based and Context-aware Business Processes. In: Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Web Services. IEEE Computer Society (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brennan, S., Cahill, V., Clarke, S.: Applying non-constant volatility analysis methods to software timeliness. In: Proceedings of the 21st Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS), WIP Track (2009)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Temponi, C., Yen, J., Tiao, W.A.: Assessment of customer’s and technical requirements through a fuzzy logic-based method. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 2, pp. 1127–1132. IEEE Computer Society (1997)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Liu, X.F., Azmoodeh, M., Gerogalas, N.: Specification of non-functional requirements for contract specification in the ngoss framework for quality management and product evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Software Quality, pp. 36–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Liu, X.F.: Fuzzy requirements. IEEE Potentials, 24–26 (1998)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Glinz, M.: On non-functional requirements. In: IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 21–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sutcliffe, A., Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M.M.: Pc-re: A method for personal and contextual requirements engineering with some experience. Requir. Eng. 11(3), 157–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Epifani, I., Ghezzi, C., Mirandola, R., Tamburrelli, G.: Model evolution by run-time parameter adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2009, pp. 111–121. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cheng, B.H.C., et al.: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap. In: Cheng, B.H.C., de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J. (eds.) Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 5525, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Robertson, P., Laddaga, R.: Model based diagnosis and contexts in self adaptive software. In: Babaoğlu, Ö., Jelasity, M., Montresor, A., Fetzer, C., Leonardi, S., van Moorsel, A., van Steen, M. (eds.) SELF-STAR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3460, pp. 112–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Robertson, P., Williams, B.: Automatic recovery from software failure. Commun. ACM 49, 41–47 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Porcarelli, S., Castaldi, M., Di Giandomenico, F., Bondavalli, A., Inverardi, P.: A framework for reconfiguration-based fault-tolerance in distributed systems. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems II. LNCS, vol. 3069, pp. 167–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tichy, M., Giese, H.: A Self-Optimizing Run-Time Architecture for Configurable Dependability of Services. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems II. LNCS, vol. 3069, pp. 25–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Giese
    • 1
  • Nelly Bencomo
    • 2
  • Liliana Pasquale
    • 3
  • Andres J. Ramirez
    • 4
  • Paola Inverardi
    • 5
  • Sebastian Wätzoldt
    • 1
  • Siobhán Clarke
    • 6
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Aston UniversityUK
  3. 3.Lero - Irish Software Engineering Research CentreIreland
  4. 4.Michigan State UniversityUSA
  5. 5.University of L’AquilaItaly
  6. 6.Trinity College DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations