Cross-Document Dependency Analysis for System-of-System Integration

  • Syed Asad Naqvi
  • Ruzanna Chitchyan
  • Steffen Zschaler
  • Awais Rashid
  • Mario Südholt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6028)

Abstract

Systems-of-systems are formed through integration of individual complex systems, often not designed to work together. A number of factors can make this integration very challenging which often leads to catastrophic failures. In this paper, we focus on three major classes of system-of-system integration problems: managerial independence, interface incompatibility, and component-system complexity. We then present an aspect-oriented requirements description language (RDL) which uses natural language analysis capabilities to reason about dependencies across the documentation of the constituent systems of a system-of-systems. The aspect-oriented compositions in the RDL also facilitate specification of cross-document constraints and inconsistency resolution strategies, which can be used for deriving proof obligations and test cases for verification and validation of the emergent behaviour of a system-of-systems. We showcase the capabilities of our RDL through a case study of a real-world emergency response system. Our analysis shows that the querying and composition capabilities of the RDL provide valuable support for reasoning across documentation of multiple systems and specifying suitable integration constraints.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sage, A.P., Cuppan, C.D.: On the systems engineering and management of systems of systems and federations of systems. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management 2(1), 325–345 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Northrop, L., Feiler, P., Gabriel, R.P., Goodenough, J., Linger, R., Longstaff, T., Kazman, R., Klein, M., Schmidt, D., Sullivan, K., Wallnau, K.: Ultra-Large-Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (July 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boardman, J., Sauser, B.: System of systems: The meaning of of. In: IEEE Int’l. System of Systems Conf., April 2006, pp. 118–123 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeLaurentis, D., Callaway, R.: A system-of-systems perspective for public policy decisions. Review of Policy Research 21(6), 829–837 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLaurentis, D.: Role of humans in complexity of a system-of-systems. In: Duffy, V.G. (ed.) HCII 2007 and DHM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4561, pp. 363–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jamshidi, M.: System of Systems Engineering: Innovations for the 21st Century. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keating, C., Rogers, R., Unal, R., Dryer, D., Sousa-Poza, A., Safford, R., Peterson, W., Rabadi, G.: System of systems engineering. EMJ – Engineering Management Journal 15, 36 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sage, A.P.: Conflict and risk management in complex system of systems issues. In: IEEE Int’l. Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisner, H.: RCASSE: rapid computer-aided systems of systems engineering. In: 3rd Int’l. Symposium of the National Council of System Engineering (NCOSE), pp. 267–273 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotov, V.: Systems of systems as communicating structures. Technical report, Hewlett Packard Computer Systems Laboratory Paper HPL-97-124 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popper, S.W., Bankes, S.C., Callaway, R., De-Laurentis, D.: System of systems symposium: Report on a summer conversation. In: 1st System of Systems Symposium (2004), http://www.potomacinstitute.org/academiccen/SoSSummerConversationreport.pdf
  12. 12.
    Baniassad, E.L.A., Clements, P., Araujo, J., Moreira, A., Rashid, A., Tekinerdogan, B.: Discovering early aspects. IEEE Software 23(1), 61–69 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rashid, A., Moreira, A., Araujo, J.: Modularisation and composition of aspectual requirements. In: International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A., Rayson, P., Waters, R.W.: Semantics-based composition for aspect-oriented requirements engineering. In: International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), pp. 36–48. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maier, M.: Architecting principles for systems of systems. Systems Engineering 1(4), 267–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madni, A.M., Sage, A.P., Madni, C.: Infusion of cognitive engineering into systems engineering processes and practices. In: IEEE Int’l. Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, October 2005, pp. 960–965 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    House of Commons Transport Committee: The opening of Heathrow Terminal 5. Twelfth Report of Session 2007-08. HC 543, Published on 3 November 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London (2008), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/543/543.pdf (December 16, 2008)
  18. 18.
    BBC News: What went wrong at heathrow’s T5? (March 2008), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7322453.stm (December 16, 2008)
  19. 19.
    Thomson, R.: British airways reveals what went wrong with Terminal 5 (May 2008), http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/05/14/230680/british+airways+reveals+what+went+wrong+with+terminal.htm (December 16, 2008)
  20. 20.
    Ellison, R.J., Goodenough, J., Weinstock, C., Woody, C.: Survivability assurance for system of systems. Technical report, CMU Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2008-TR-008, ESC-TR-2008-008 (May 2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rechtin, E.: Systems Architecting. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benavides Navarro, L.D., Südholt, M., Douence, R., Menaud, J.-M.: Invasive patterns for distributed programs. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 772–789. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, B., Tolman, T.: Can we talk? Public safety and the interoperability challenge. National Institute of Justice Journal, 17–21 (April 2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC),The Department of Homeland Security: The system of systems approach for interoperable communications (2008), http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FD22B528-18B7-4CB1-AF49-F9626C608290/0/SOSApproachforInteroperableCommunications_02.pdf (last visited, January 2008)
  25. 25.
    Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board: Phase I report (November 1999), ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf
  26. 26.
    NASA: Mars climate orbiter official website (1998), http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html
  27. 27.
    Marshall, S.: Software engineering: Mars climate orbiter, http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/stephen_marshall/SE/Failures/SE_MCO.html
  28. 28.
    UCREL: UCREL semantic analysis system (USAS). Lancaster University, UK (2006), http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/usas/
  29. 29.
    Dixon, R.M.W.: A Semantic Approach to English Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levin, B.: English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rayson, P.: WMATRIX. Lancaster University (2007), http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/wmatrix/
  32. 32.
    Sawyer, P., Rayson, P., Cosh, K.: Shallow knowledge as an aid to deep understanding in early phase requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 31(11), 969–981 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filman, R.E., Elrad, T., Clarke, S., Akşit, M.: Aspect-Oriented Software Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quirk, R., et al.: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London (1985)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Francis, W.N., Kučera, H.: Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1982)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical report, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory and Stanford Medical Informatics, Technical Report KSL-01-05 and SMI-2001-0880 (2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A., Lieberman, H., Wahlster, W.: Spinning the Semantic Web. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hale, K.L., Keyser, S.J.: A View from the Middle. MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moreira, A., Araujo, J., Rashid, A.: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns in requirements engineering. In: 13th IEEE Int’l. Conf. on Requirements Engineering (RE 2005), pp. 285–296 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A.: Tracing requirements interdependency semantics. In: Workshop on Early Aspects (held with ASOD 2006), Bonn, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sampaio, A., Rashid, A., Chitchyan, R., Rayson, P.: EA-Miner: Towards automation in aspect-oriented requirements engineering. Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development 3, 4–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Waters, R.W.: MRAT – the multidimensional requirements analysis tool. Master’s thesis, Computing Department, Lancaster University (October 2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rashid, A., Moreira, A.: Domain models are NOT aspect free. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chitchyan, R., Pinto, M., Rashid, A., Fuentes, L.: COMPASS: composition-centric mapping of aspectual requirements to architecture. Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development 4, 3–53 (2007)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sampaio, A., Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A., Rayson, P.: EA-Miner: a tool for automating aspect-oriented requirements identification. In: 20th IEEE/ACM Int’l. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2005), pp. 352–355. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kit, L.K., Man, C.K., Baniassad, E.: Isolating and relating concerns in requirements using latent semantic analysis. SIGPLAN Not. 41(10), 383–396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Niu, N., Easterbrook, S.M.: Analysis of early aspects in requirements goal models: A concept-driven approach. Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development 3, 40–72 (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baeza-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B.: Modern Information Retrieval. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Alves, V., Schwanninger, C., Barbosa, L., Rashid, A., Sawyer, P., Rayson, P., Pohl, C., Rummler, A.: An exploratory study of information retrieval techniques in domain analysis. In: 12th Int’l. Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC 2008), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 67–76. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syed Asad Naqvi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ruzanna Chitchyan
    • 1
  • Steffen Zschaler
    • 1
  • Awais Rashid
    • 1
  • Mario Südholt
    • 2
  1. 1.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.DCSÉcole des Mines de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations