1. MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway Behavioural Interoperability to Support Model-Driven Systems Integration Alek Radjenovic, Richard Paige The University of York, UK

2. Context Project: Model Driven Integration Industry partners use a mixture of software components from the supply chain o new code, third-party (COTS), legacy Increased uncertainty during system integration Models described using different: o platforms: UML, SysML, MODAF, Matlab Simulink,... o tools: Rose RT, IBM RSA, Artisan Studio,... o versions: UML 1.x vs. UML 2.x Problem: lack of support for model driven integration MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

3. Importance Detection of system integration problems very early on o during system design phase when models are created o before any new code is written o before a buy-in from a supply chain s/w manufacturer Combining of system components that were not created: o at the same source o using the same (modelling or programming) platform MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

4. Technical requirements Ability to bring together system components at the model level in order to be able to reason about: o structural compatibility (mainly evident at the syntax level) o behavioural compatibility (mainly evident at the semantic level) Provide a tool framework (for the above) that is compatible for all relevant modelling technologies o as well as being extensible and scalable MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

5. Solution A multi-paradigm modelling framework (SMILE) comprising: o a tool, a family of supporting languages, extension mechanism SMILE capability: o compatibility checking of two or more input models checking for potential structural (SMILE-S) and behavioural (SMILE-X) problems during integration o integration at model level (SMILE-I) o semi-automatic detection of incompatibilities guidance manual user intervention MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

6. SMILE-S: in a nutshell An interchange format o describes the structure of heterogeneous models in a uniform fashion in terms of trees vertices = structural elements, edges = containment relationship typically, a collection of properties to further describe characteristics of the structural elements is attached to vertices Transformation of input models into SMILE trees o external to the core tool o i.e. the knowledge of the underlying meta-models and parsing is delegated to plug-in components MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

7. SMILE-S trees MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

8. SMILE-S patterns MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway By applying patterns to trees, we are able to extract (isolate) information of interest, and use transformations to define inputs to SMILE-X

9. SMILE-X: approach Focuses solely on the behaviours in models Explores compatibility and interoperability issues via simulation Uses templates to map artefacts from SMILE-S trees to the specified behavioural model o enables us to associate semantics with structural model elements o describes a particular behavioural paradigm (or, a related family of behaviours) that we are interested in analysing e.g. state machines Facilitates a mechanism through which we can integrate behaviours of input models o based on the chosen perspective, and o consequently perform simulations on the integrated system MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

10. SMILE-S/X: conceptual approach MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

11. SMILE-X architecture MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

12. SMILE-X: mapping, configuration & instantiation MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway configuration instantiation - Initialisation - Temporal config. - Connections

13. SMILE-X: Scheduling, Triggers, Traces Scheduling o options such as: simple activation, double buffer, or event based Triggers o Compound Boolean expressions o Flags to halt execution Simulation trace o Sequential o Provides information on: Input and output messages Failed conditions Executed actions Triggered conditions MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

14. Results Through our initial exploration on small in-house case studies, we have been able to detect issues such as: o invalid state combinations o unused events o unreachable states o disconnected subsystems o out of sequence messages o deadlocks o properties that do not hold MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

15. Value Potential to predict system integration problems early on in the development lifecycle that may: o influence decisions on software acquisition o save money o reduce development lifecycle timescales o reduce risks MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

16. Future directions Immediate future o proof of scalability and extensibility o a real world case study from the avionics domain in the order of 100s of UML packages effort: 4 man-months Beyond that... o potential for exploitation through tool vendors MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway

17. Software Systems Engineering Initiative www.ssei.org.uk