Advertisement

The Role of Parts in the System Behaviour

  • Davide Di Ruscio
  • Ivano Malavolta
  • Patrizio Pelliccione
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8785)

Abstract

In today’s world, we are surrounded by software-based systems that control so many critical activities. Every few years we experiment dramatic software failures and this asks for software that gives evidence of resilience and continuity. Moreover, we are observing an unavoidable shift from stand-alone systems to systems of systems, to ecosystems, to cyber-physical systems and in general to systems that are composed of various independent parts that collaborate and cooperate to realise the desired goal.

Our thesis is that the resilience of such systems should be constructed compositionally and incrementally out of the resilience of system parts. Understanding the role of parts in the system behaviour will (i) promote a “divide-and-conquer strategy” on the verification of systems, (ii) enable the verification of systems that continuously evolve during their life-time, (iii) allow the detection and isolation of faults, and (iv) facilitate the definition of suitable reaction strategies. In this paper we propose a methodology that integrates needs of flexibility and agility with needs of resilience. We instantiate the methodology in the domain of a swarm of autonomous quadrotors that cooperate in order to achieve a given goal.

Keywords

State Machine System Part System Goal Agile Method Mission 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.
    Johnson, C.W.: What are emergent properties and how do they affect the engineering of complex systems? Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91(12), 1475–1481 (2006), Complexity in Design and EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inverardi, P., Autili, M., Di Ruscio, D., Pelliccione, P., Tivoli, M.: Producing software by integration: Challenges and research directions (keynote). In: Procs. of ESEC/FSE 2013, pp. 2–12. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alrajeh, D., Ray, O., Russo, A., Uchitel, S.: Using abduction and induction for operational requirements elaboration. Journal of Applied Logic 7(3), 275–288 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. In: Procs. of SIGSOFT 2002/FSE-10, pp. 119–128. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Autili, M., Cortellessa, V., Di Ruscio, D., Inverardi, P., Pelliccione, P., Tivoli, M.: Eagle: Engineering software in the ubiquitous globe by leveraging uncertainty. In: Procs. of ESEC/FSE 2011, pp. 488–491. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garlan, D.: Software engineering in an uncertain world. In: Procs. of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 2010, pp. 125–128. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghezzi, C.: Evolution, adaptation, and the quest for incrementality. In: Calinescu, R., Garlan, D. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2012. LNCS, vol. 7539, pp. 369–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gary, K., Enquobahrie, A., Ibanez, L., Cheng, P., Yaniv, Z., Cleary, K., Kokoori, S., Muffih, B., Heidenreich, J.: Agile methods for open source safety-critical software. Softw. Pract. Exper. 41(9), 945–962 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ge, X., Paige, R., McDermid, J.: An iterative approach for development of safety-critical software and safety arguments. In: Agile Conf. (AGILE), pp. 35–43 (August 2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leveson, N.G.: Software safety: Why, what, and how. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(2), 125–163 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolff, S.: Scrum goes formal: Agile methods for safety-critical systems. In: Software Engineering: Rigorous and Agile Approaches (FormSERA), pp. 23–29 (June 2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements enginering: A roundtrip from research to practice. In: Procs. of RE 2004, pp. 4–7. IEEE Comp. Soc. (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements engineering in the year 00: A research perspective. In: Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, ICSE 2000, pp. 5–19. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Autili, M., Di Ruscio, D., Di Salle, A., Inverardi, P., Tivoli, M.: A model-based synthesis process for choreography realizability enforcement. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bucchiarone, A., Di Ruscio, D., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P.: From Requirements to Java code: an Architecture-centric Approach for producing quality systems. In: Model-Driven Software Development: Integrating Quality Assurance (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubira, C.M.F., de Lemos, R., Ferreira, G.R.M., Castor Filho, F.: Exception handling in the development of dependable component-based systems. Softw. Pract. Exper. 35(3), 195–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, P.A., Anderson, T.: Fault Tolerance: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. Springer (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Pelliccione, P.: Engineering a platform for mission planning of autonomous and resilient quadrotors. In: Gorbenko, A., Romanovsky, A., Kharchenko, V. (eds.) SERENE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8166, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Pelliccione, P.: A family of domain-specific languages for specifying civilian missions of multi-robot systems. In: First Workshop on Model-Driven Robot Software Engineering - MORSE 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bianculli, D., Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Interface decomposition for service compositions. In: Procs. of ICSE 2011, pp. 501–510. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, C.: Development Methods for Computer Programs Including a Notion of Interference. PhD thesis. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Programming Research Group (1981)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pnueli, A.: Logics and models of concurrent systems, pp. 123–144. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S., Barringer, H.: Component verification with automatically generated assumptions. Automated Software Engg. 12(3), 297–320 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clematis, A., Dodero, G., Gianuzzi, V.: Designing fault tolerant software with a recovery meta program. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, pp. 864–865 (March 1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Florio, V.D.: A Fault-Tolerance Linguistic Structure for Distributed Applications. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, ESAT Department, ACCA Division, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (October 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Di Ruscio
    • 1
  • Ivano Malavolta
    • 2
  • Patrizio Pelliccione
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering, Computer Science and MathematicsUniversity of L’AquilaItaly
  2. 2.Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’AquilaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of Technology – University of GothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations