Context-Based Behavioral Equivalence of Components in Self-Adaptive Systems
An important challenge to realize dynamic adaptation is finding suitable components for substitution or interaction according to the current context. A possible solution is checking behavioral equivalence of components in different contexts. Two components are equivalent with respect to a context, if they behave equivalently in that context. In this work, we deal with context-specific behavioral equivalence of PobSAM components. PobSAM is a flexible formal model for developing and modeling evolving self-adaptive systems. A PobSAM model is a collection of actors, views, and autonomous managers. Autonomous managers govern the behavior of actors by enforcing suitable context-based policies. Views provide contextual information for managers to control and adapt the actors behavior. Managers are the core components used to realize adaptation by changing their policies. They are modeled as meta-actors whose configurations are described using a multi-sorted algebra called CA. The behavior of mangers depends on the context in which they are executing. In this paper, we present an equational theory to reason about context-specific behavioral equivalence of managers independently from actors. To this end, we introduce and axiomatize a new operator to consider the interaction of managers and the context. This equational theory is based on the notion of statebased bisimilarity and allows us to reason about the behavioral equivalence of managers as well as the behavioral equivalence of the constitutes of managers (i.e., policies and configurations). We illustrate our approach through an example.
KeywordsInternal Action Equational Theory Axiom System Governing Policy Adaptation Policy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Garlan, D., Cheng, S.-W., Schmerl, B.R.: Increasing system dependability through architecture-based self-repair. In: WADS, pp. 61–89 (2002)Google Scholar
- 7.Khakpour, N.: Context-based behavioral equivalence of components in self-adaptive systems. Technical report, Technical Report of TU Bruanschweig (2011)Google Scholar
- 9.Khakpour, N., Jalili, S., Talcott, C.L., Sirjani, M., Mousavi, M.R.: Formal modeling of evolving adaptive systems (submitted, 2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Khakpour, N., Khosravi, R., Sirjani, M., Jalili, S.: Formal analysis of policy-based self-adaptive systems. In: SAC, pp. 2536–2543 (2010)Google Scholar
- 11.Legond-Aubry, F., Enselme, D., Florin, G.: Assembling contracts for components. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 35–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Mateescu, R., Poizat, P., Salaun, G.: Adaptation of service protocols using process algebra and on-the-fly reduction techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 99(prePrints) (2011)Google Scholar
- 13.Schaeffer-Filho, A., Lupu, E., Sloman, M., Eisenbach, S.: Verification of policy-based self-managed cell interactions using alloy. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY 2009, pp. 37–40. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
- 19.Zhang, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2006, pp. 371–380. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
- 20.Zhang, J., Goldsby, H., Cheng, B.H.C.: Modular verification of dynamically adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-oriented Software Development, pp. 161–172 (2009)Google Scholar