Advertisement

Workflow-Driven Tool Integration Using Model Transformations

  • András Balogh
  • Gábor Bergmann
  • György Csertán
  • László Gönczy
  • Ákos Horváth
  • István Majzik
  • András Pataricza
  • Balázs Polgár
  • István Ráth
  • Dániel Varró
  • Gergely Varró
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5765)

Abstract

The design of safety-critical systems and business-critical services necessitates to coordinate between a large variety of tools used in different phases of the development process. As certification frequently prescribes to achieve justified compliance with regulations of authorities, integrated tool chain should strictly adhere to the development process itself. In order to manage complexity, we follow a model-driven approach where the development process is captured using a precise domain-specific modeling language. Each individual step within this process is represented transparently as a service. Moreover, to carry out individual tasks, systems engineers are guided by semi-automated transformation steps and well-formedness constraint checking. Both of them are formalized by graph patterns and graph transformation rules as provided by the Viatra2 framework. In our prototype implementation, we use the popular JBPM workflow engine as orchestration means between different design and verification tools. We also give some insights how this tool integration approach was applied in recent projects.

Keywords

Model Transformation Graph Transformation Graph Pattern Tool Integration Tool Chain 
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.
    RTCA - Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautic: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, DO-178B (1992), https://www.arinc.com/cf/store/catalog_detail.cfm?item_id=633
  2. 2.
    Rushby, J.: Runtime Certification. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 21–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kornecki, A.J., Zalewski, J.: The Qualification of Software Development Tools from the DO-178B Perspective. Journal of Defense Software Engineering (April 2006), http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2006/04/0604KorneckiZalewski.html
  4. 4.
    Miller, S.P.: Certification Issues in Model Based Development Rockwell CollinsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The DECOS Project: DECOS - Dependable Embedded Components and Systems, http://www.decos.at/
  6. 6.
    The DIANA Project Consortium: DIANA (Distributed, equipment Independent environment for Advanced avioNic Application) EU FP6 Research Project, http://dianaproject.com
  7. 7.
    The SENSORIA Project: The SENSORIA website, http://www.sensoria-ist.eu
  8. 8.
    The MOGENTES Project : MOGENTES (Model-based Generation of Tests for Dependable Embedded Systems) EU FP7 Research Project, http://mogentes.eu
  9. 9.
    The GENESYS Project: GENESYS - GENeric Embedded SYStem, http://www.genesys-platform.eu/
  10. 10.
    The INDEXYS Project: INDEXYS - INDustrial EXploitation of the genesYS cross-domain architecture, http://www.indexys.eu/
  11. 11.
    Ráth, I., Vágó, D., Varró, D.: Design-time Simulation of Domain-specific Models By Incremental Pattern Matching. In: 2008 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pintér, G., Majzik, I.: Runtime Verification of Statechart Implementations. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems III. LNCS, vol. 3549, pp. 148–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sisak, Á., Pintér, G., Majzik, I.: Automated Verification of Complex Behavioral Models Using the SAL Model Checker. In: Tarnai, G., Schnieder, E. (eds.) Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems (Proceedings of the FORMS-2008 Conference), Budapest, Hungary, LH́armattan (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Partaricza, A.: Systematic generation of dependability cases from functional models. In: Proceedings of Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems (FORMAT 2008), Budapest, Hungary (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Bondavalli, A.: Stochastic dependability analysis of system architecture based on uml models. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems. LNCS, vol. 2677, pp. 219–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoitsch, E., Althammer, E., Eriksson, H., Vinter, J., Gönczy, L., Pataricza, A., Csertán, G.: Validation and Certification of Safety-Critical Embedded Systems - the DECOS Test Bench. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 372–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balogh, A., Pataricza, A., Ráth, I.: Automated verification and validation of domain specific languages and their applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th World Congress for Software Quality, Bethesda, USA, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pintér, G., Majzik, I.: Model Based Automatic Code Generation for Embedded Systems. In: Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Embedded and Ambient Systems (RCEAS 2007), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 97–106 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gönczy, L., Ávéd, J., Varró, D.: Model-based Deployment of Web Services to Standards-compliant Middleware. In: Isaias, P., Miguel Baptista Nunes, I.J.M. (eds.) Proc. of the Iadis International Conference on WWW/Internet 2006 (ICWI 2006), Iadis Press (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kövi, A., Varró, D.: An eclipse-based framework for ais service configurations. In: Malek, M., Reitenspieß, M., van Moorsel, A. (eds.) ISAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4526, pp. 110–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pintér, G., Majzik, I.: Automatic Generation of Executable Assertions for Runtime Checking Temporal Requirements. In: Dal Cin, M., Bondavalli, A., Suri, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE 2005), Heidelberg, Germany, October 12-14, pp. 111–120 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karsai, G., Lang, A., Neema, S.: Design Patterns for Open Tool Integration. Software and Systems Modeling 4(2), 157–170 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, B.: Applying ”design by contract”. IEEE Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Locke, C.D.: Safety critical javaTMtechnology. In: JTRES 2006: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Java Technologies for Real-Time and Embedded Systems, pp. 95–96. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ARINC - Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated: A653 - Avionics Application Software Standard Interface, https://www.arinc.com/cf/store/catalog_detail.cfm?item_id=633
  26. 26.
    DECOS - Dependabe Embedded Components and Systems consortium : The DECOS Platform Independent Metamodel, public deliverable, http://www.inf.mit.bme.hu/decoscd/deliverables/DECOS_deliv_PIM_Metamodel.pdf
  27. 27.
    Baar, T.: OCL and graph-transformations - A Symbiotic Alliance to Alleviate the Frame Problem. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 20–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Azab, K., Habel, A.: High-level programs and program conditions. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 211–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bergmann, G., Ökrös, A., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Varró, G.: Incremental pattern matching in the VIATRA transformation system. In: GRaMoT 2008, 3rd International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformation, 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winkelmann, J., Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Küster, J.M.: Translation of restricted OCL constraints into graph constraints for generating meta model instances by graph grammars. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 159–170 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Varró, D., Balogh, A.: The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework. Science of Computer Programming 68(3), 214–234 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Balogh, A., Varró, D.: Advanced Model Transformation Language Constructs in the VIATRA2 Framework. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing — Model Transformation Track (SAC 2006) (2006) (in press)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rensink, A.: Representing first-order logic using graphs. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 319–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horváth, Á., Varró, D.: CSP(M): Constraint Satisfaction Programming over Models. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 107–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hemel, Z., Kats, L.C.L., Visser, E.: Code generation by model transformation. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hänsgen, S., Taentzer, G.: Towards graph transformation based generation of visual editors using eclipse. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 127–143 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines. A method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koenig, J.: JBoss jBPM White Paper. Technical report, The JBoss Group / Riseforth.com (2004), http://jbossgroup.com/pdf/jbpm_whitepaper.pdf
  39. 39.
    IBM Rational: Jazz Community Site, http://jazz.net/
  40. 40.
    The Object Management Group: Software Process Engineering Metamodel, version 2.0 (2008), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/spem.htm
  41. 41.
    The EPF Project: The Eclipse Process Framework website, http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  42. 42.
    Haumer, P.: Increasing Development Knowledge with Eclipse Process Framework Composer. Eclipse Review (2006), http://haumer.net/rational/publications.html
  43. 43.
    Einar W. Karlsen: The UniForM WorkBench: A Higher Order Tool Integration Framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1641 (1999) 266–280Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rellermeyer, J.S., Alonso, G., Roscoe, T.: R-OSGi: Distributed Applications Through Software Modularization. In: Cerqueira, R., Campbell, R.H. (eds.) Middleware 2007. LNCS, vol. 4834, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Margaria, T., Nagel, R., Steffen, B.: jETI: A Tool for Remote Tool Integration. LNCS, vol. 2440, pp. 557–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Corradini, F., Mariani, L., Merelli, E.: An Agent-based Approach for Tool Integration. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 6(3), 231–244 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gönczy, L., Déri, Z., Varró, D.: Model Driven Performability Analysis of Service Configurations with Reliable Messaging. In: Proc. of Model Driven Web Engineering Workshop (MDWE 2008) (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gönczy, L., Déri, Z., Varró, D.a.: Model transformations for performability analysis of service configurations, pp. 153–166 (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ráth, I., Varró, G., Varró, D.: Change-driven model transformations. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) (accepted)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ráth, I., Ökrös, A., Varró, D.: Synchronization of abstract and concrete syntax in domain-specific modeling languages. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (2009) (accepted)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Klein, P., Nagl, M., Schürr, A.: IPSEN Tools. In: [59], pp. 215–266. World Scientific, Singapore (1999)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kapsammer, E., Kargl, H., Kramler, G., Reiter, T., Retschitzegger, W., Wimmer, M.: On Models and Ontologies – A Layered Approach for Model-based Tool Integration. In: Proceedings of the Modellierung 2006, pp. 11–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Klar, F., Rose, S., Schürr, A.: A Meta-model Driven Tool Integration Development Process. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 5, pp. 201–212 (2008)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Amelunxen, C., Klar, F., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: Metamodel-based Tool Integration with MOFLON. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 807–810. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    The TOPCASED Project: TOPCASED - The Open-Source Toolkit for Critical Systems, http://www.topcased.org/
  56. 56.
    Canalsm, A., Le Camus, C., Feau, M., et al.: An Operational Use of ATL: Integration of Model and Meta Model Transformations in the TOPCASED Project. In: Ouwehand, L. (ed.) Proc. of the DASIA 2006 - Data Systems in Aerospace Conference, European Space Agency, p. 40 (2006), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ESASP.630E.40C
  57. 57.
    The ModelWare Project: ModelWare - MODELling solution for softWARE systems, http://www.modelware-ist.org/
  58. 58.
    The MODELPLEX Project: MODELPLEX - Modeling Solution for Complex Systems, http://www.modelplex-ist.org/
  59. 59.
    Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Applications, Languages and Tools, vol. 2. World Scientific, Singapore (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Balogh
    • 3
  • Gábor Bergmann
    • 1
  • György Csertán
    • 3
  • László Gönczy
    • 1
  • Ákos Horváth
    • 1
  • István Majzik
    • 1
  • András Pataricza
    • 1
  • Balázs Polgár
    • 1
  • István Ráth
    • 1
  • Dániel Varró
    • 1
  • Gergely Varró
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Measurement and Information SystemsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Information TheoryBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  3. 3.OptxWare Research and Development LLCHungary

Personalised recommendations