The Invariant Refinement Method

  • Tomáš Bureš
  • Ilias Gerostathopoulos
  • Petr Hnetynka
  • Jaroslav Keznikl
  • Michal Kit
  • Frantisek Plasil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8998)

Abstract

The chapter describes IRM, a method that guides the design of smart-cyber physical systems that are built according to the autonomic service-component paradigm. IRM is a requirements-oriented design method that focuses on distributed collaboration. It relies on the invariant concept to model both high-level system goals and low-level software obligations. In IRM, high-level invariants are iteratively decomposed into more specific sub-invariants up to the level that they can be operationalized by autonomous components and component collaborations (ensembles). We present the main concepts behind the method, as well the main decomposition patterns that back up the design process, and illustrate them in the ASCENS e-mobility case study.

Keywords

system design dependability self-adaptivity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abeywickrama, D.B., Bicocchi, N., Zambonelli, F.: SOTA: Towards a General Model for Self-Adaptive Systems. In: Proc. of WETICE ’12, pp. 48–53. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Monitoring of Real-Time Properties. In: Arun-Kumar, S., Garg, N. (eds.) FSTTCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4337, pp. 260–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruni, R., Corradini, A., Gadducci, F., Hölzl, M., Lafuente, A.L., Vandin, A., Wirsing, M.: Reconciling White-Box and Black-Box Perspectives on Behavioral Self-adaptation. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.) Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. LNCS, vol. 8998, pp. 163–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bures, T., Gerostathopoulos, I., Hnetynka, P., Keznikl, J., Kit, M., Plasil, F.: DEECo – an Ensemble-Based Component System. In: Proc. of CBSE’13, pp. 81–90. ACM Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bures, T., Gerostathopoulos, I., Hnetynka, P., Keznikl, J., Kit, M., Plasil, F., Plouzeau, N.: Adaptation in Cyber-Physical Systems: from System Goals to Architecture Configurations. Tech. rep., D3S-TR-2014-01, Dep. of Distributed and Dependable Systems, Charles University in Prague (Jan 2014), http://d3s.mff.cuni.cz/publications/download/D3S-TR-2014-01.pdf
  7. 7.
    Bures, T., Gerostathopoulos, I., Keznikl, J., Plasil, F., Tuma, P.: Formalization of Invariant Patterns for the Invariant Refinement Method. To appear in Springer LNCS volume dedicated to Wirsing-Festschrift (2015), preliminary version available at http://d3s.mff.cuni.cz/publications/download/D3S-TR-2013-04.pdf
  8. 8.
    Bures, T., Gerostathopoulos, I., Horky, V., Keznikl, J., Kofron, J., Loreti, M., Plasil, F.: Language Extensions for Implementation-Level Conformance Checking, ASCENS deliverable 1.5 (Nov. 2012), http://www.ascens-ist.eu/deliverables
  9. 9.
    Buttazo, G., Lipari, G., Abeni, L., Caccamo, M.: Soft Real-Time Systems: Predictability vs Efficiency. In: Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerostathopoulos, I., Bures, T., Hnetynka, P.: Position Paper: Towards a Requirements-Driven Design of Ensemble-Based Component Systems. In: Proc. of HotTopiCS workshop at ICPE ’13, pp. 79–86. ACM Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giorgini, P., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J., Pistore, M.: The Tropos Methodology: An Overview. In: Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, pp. 89–106. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoch, N., Bensler, H.-P., Abeywickrama, D., Bureš, T., Montanari, U.: The E-mobility Case Study. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.) Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. LNCS, vol. 8998, pp. 513–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Puviani, M., Wirsing, M., Zambonelli, F.: The Ensemble Development Life Cycle and Best Practices for Collective Autonomic Systems. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.) Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. LNCS, vol. 8998, pp. 325–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hölzl, M.M., Wirsing, M.: Towards a System Model for Ensembles. In: Agha, G., Danvy, O., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Formal Modeling: Actors, Open Systems, Biological Systems. LNCS, vol. 7000, pp. 241–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keznikl, J., Bures, T., Plasil, F., Gerostathopoulos, I., Hnetynka, P., Hoch, N.: Design of Ensemble-Based Component Systems by Invariant Refinement. In: Proc. of CBSE ’13, pp. 91–100. ACM Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamsweerde, A.V.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proc. of RE’01, pp. 249–262. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: From System Goals to Software Architecture. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 25–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamsweerde, A.V.: Requirements Engineering: From Craft to Discipline. In: Proc. of SIGSOFT ’08/FSE-16, pp. 238–249. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lamsweerde, A.V.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noël, V., Zambonelli, F.: Methodological Guidelines for Engineering Self-organization and Emergence. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.) Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. LNCS, vol. 8998, pp. 355–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice. In: Proc. of ICMAS ’95, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vassev, E., Hinchey, M.: Autonomy Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer 46(8), 82–84 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vassev, E., Hinchey, M.: Engineering Requirements for Autonomy Features. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.) Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. LNCS, vol. 8998, pp. 379–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Bureš
    • 1
  • Ilias Gerostathopoulos
    • 1
  • Petr Hnetynka
    • 1
  • Jaroslav Keznikl
    • 1
  • Michal Kit
    • 1
  • Frantisek Plasil
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Distributed and Dependable SystemsCharles University in PraguePragueCzech republic

Personalised recommendations