Advertisement

Formal Specification of the \({eP^2}\) Architecture

  • Felix KossakEmail author
  • Christa Illibauer
  • Verena Geist
  • Christine Natschläger
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
Chapter
  • 859 Downloads

Abstract

An important issue concerning system architectures is how to guarantee that the executable behaviour of a particular model is exactly the same as intended by the system architect. Graphical notations seem intuitive enough to be well understood almost at first sight. However, they typically lack the precise mathematical basis that is required to render them really unambiguous. On the contrary, attempts at formalisation can easily become quite complex. For this reason, we apply the notion of ASMs to formalise the \({eP^2}\) components, their interfaces and behaviour, and to specify the collaboration of the components in a rigorous way. Moreover, by using a formal notation, we avoid ambiguities in the system from the very start. Furthermore, we fulfil the main goals of a software architecture description comprising, amongst others, (i) efficient support of the system development, (ii) the presentation of different aspects of the architecture, and (iii) descriptions of components at different levels of abstraction.

Keywords

Ground Model Process Instance Abstract Rule Transition Interpreter Shared Function 
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.
    Albin, S.: The Art of Software Architecture: Design Methods and Techniques. Wiley Application Development Series. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R.J.: A Formal Approach to Software Architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1997), aAI9813815Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banâtre, J.P., Le Métayer, D.: The gamma model and its discipline of programming. Sci. Comput. Program. 15(1), 55–77 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry, G., Boudol, G.: The chemical abstract machine. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. pp. 81–94. POPL ’90, ACM, New York, NY, USA (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiadeiro, J.L., Lopes, A., Bocchi, L.: A formal approach to service component architecture. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Services and Formal Methods. pp. 193–213. WS-FM ’06, Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gurevich, Y.: Sequential abstract state machines capture sequential algorithms. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 1(1), 77–111 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, X., Yu, H., Shi, T., Ding, J., Deng, Y.: Formally analyzing software architectural specifications using sam. J. Syst. Softw. 71(1–2), 11–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inverardi, P., Wolf, A.: Formal specification and analysis of software architectures using the chemical abstract machine model. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(4), 373–386 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V., Kubovy, J., Natschläger, C., Ziebermayr, T., Kopetzky, T., Freudenthaler, B., Schewe, K.D.: A rigorous semantics for BPMN 2.0 process diagrams: the ground model in detail. http://www.scch.at/en/HagenbergBPM (2014). Accessed 12 Oct 2015
  11. 11.
    Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V., Kubovy, J., Natschläger, C., Ziebermayr, T., Kopetzky, T., Freudenthaler, B., Schewe, K.D.: A Rigorous Semantics for BPMN 2.0 Process Diagrams. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0 (2011). Accessed 06 Oct 2015
  13. 13.
    Oquendo, F.: Pi-ADL: an architecture description language based on the higher-order typed pi-calculus for specifying dynamic and mobile software architectures. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes pp. 1–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ter Hofstede, A.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Kossak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christa Illibauer
    • 1
  • Verena Geist
    • 1
  • Christine Natschläger
    • 1
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
    • 1
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
    • 1
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
    • 1
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbHHagenberg im MühlkreisAustria

Personalised recommendations