Model inspections in the engineering of collaborative cyber‐physical systems with instance‐level review diagrams
Abstract
Model inspections are important to ensure high‐quality software and to satisfy legal obligations in model‐based engineering processes. As model‐based specifications are typically documented on type‐level, errors concerning the interactions between multiple system instances can go unnoticed. For collaborative cyber‐physical systems (CPS), a plethora of possible instance‐level configurations need to be taken into account. Therefore, we propose the definition of instance‐level review diagrams that show representative interactions of instance‐level configurations that help detect defects in the system specification. To evaluate the approach, we conducted a controlled experiment whose results indicate that instance‐level review diagrams have—compared with type‐level diagrams—important positive effects on reviewing processes for behavioral specifications of CPS. Specifically, the experiment provides empirical evidence that instance‐level review diagrams are significantly more expressive and effective than type‐level diagrams.
Graphical Abstract
This paper contributes a definition of instance‐level review diagrams in message sequence charts notation and reports results of a controlled experiment to evaluate instance‐level review diagrams. Results show that instance‐level review models support the validation of behavior specifications of collaborative cyber‐physical systems that operate in changing system network configurations.
References
[1]
Sampaio do Prado Leite JC, Freeman PA. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 1991;17(12):1253‐1269.
[2]
Bacchelli A, Bird C. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE'13. IEEE Press; 2013; San Francisco, CA, USA:712‐721.
[3]
Sikora E, Tenbergen B, Pohl K. Industry needs and research directions in requirements engineering for embedded systems. Requirements Eng. 2011;17(1):57‐78 en.
[4]
Shull F, Rus I, Basili VR. How perspective‐based reading can improve requirements inspections. IEEE Comput. 2000;33(7):73‐79.
[5]
Daun M, Brings J, Krajinski L, Weyer T. On the benefits of using dedicated models in validation processes for behavioral specifications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes, ICSSP 2019 Jr SMS, Armbrust O, Hebig R, eds. IEEE / ACM; 2019; Montreal, QC, Canada:44‐53.
[6]
Daun M, Weyer T, Pohl K. Improving manual reviews in function‐centered engineering of embedded systems using a dedicated review model. Softw Syst Model. 2019;18(6):3421‐3459.
[7]
Daun M, Brings J, Weyer T. On the impact of the model‐based representation of inconsistencies to manual reviews ‐ results from a controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of Conceptual Modeling ‐ 36th International Conference, ER 2017 Mayr HC, Guizzardi G, Ma H, Pastor O, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10650. Springer; 2017; Valencia, Spain:466‐473.
[8]
Daun M, Salmon A, Weyer T, Pohl K. The impact of students' skills and experiences on empirical results: a controlled experiment with undergraduate and graduate students. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2015 Lv J, Zhang HJ, Babar MA, eds. ACM; 2015; Nanjing, China:29.
[9]
Stenkova V, Brings J, Daun M, Weyer T. Generic negative scenarios for the specification of collaborative cyber‐physical systems. In: Proceedings of Conceptual modeling ‐ 38th international conference, ER 2019; 2019; Salvador, Brazil:412‐419.
[10]
Houdek F & Schmerler S Automotive future and its impact on requirements engineering. In: Joint proceedings of REFSQ‐2017 Workshops, Doctoral Symposium, Research Method Track, and Poster Track Co‐Located with the 22nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2017); 2017; Essen, Germany.
[11]
Brings J, Daun M, Bandyszak T, et al. Model‐based documentation of dynamicity constraints for collaborative cyber‐physical system architectures: Findings from an industrial case study. J Syst Architect. 2019;97:153‐167.
[12]
Daun M, Brings J, Weyer T. Do instance‐level review diagrams support validation processes of cyber‐physical system specifications: results from a controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes, ICSSP '20. Association for Computing Machinery; 2020; New York, NY, USA:11‐20.
[13]
Daun M, Brings J, Weyer T. A semi‐automated approach to foster the validation of collaborative networks of cyber‐physical systems. In: 4th IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Engineering for Smart Cyber‐Physical Systems. Gothenburg Sweden: SEsCPS@ICSE 2018; 2018:6‐12.
[14]
Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D. Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjøberg DIK, eds. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. London: Springer; 2008:201‐228 en.
[15]
Wohlin C. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction, Kluwer international series in software engineering, vol. 6. Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic; 2000.
[16]
Becker B, Beyer D, Giese H, Klein F, Schilling D. Symbolic invariant verification for systems with dynamic structural adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '06. ACM; 2006; New York, NY, USA:72‐81.
[17]
Giese H, Tichy M, Burmester S, Schäfer W, Flake S. Towards the compositional verification of real‐time UML designs. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE‐11. ACM; 2003; New York, NY, USA:38‐47.
[18]
Giese H, Burmester S, Schäfer W, Oberschelp O. Modular design and verification of component‐based mechatronic systems with online‐reconfiguration. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT Twelfth International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, SIGSOFT '04/FSE‐12. ACM; 2004; New York, NY, USA:179‐188.
[19]
J1239_200901 SIS . Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA), Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA); 2009.
[20]
Malakuti S. Detecting emergent interference in integration of multiple self‐adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 2014 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops, ECSAW '14. ACM; 2014; New York, NY, USA:24:1‐24:7.
[21]
Bauer B, Müller JP, Odell J. Agent UML: a formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. In: Goos G, Hartmanis J, van Leeuwen J, Ciancarini P, Wooldridge MJ, eds. Agent‐Oriented Software Engineering, Vol. 1957. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2001:91‐103.
[22]
Klein F, Giese H. Analysis and design of physical and social contexts in multi‐agent systems using UML. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes. 2005;30(4):1‐8.
[23]
Bures T, Hnetynka P & Plasil F. Strengthening architectures of smart CPS by modeling them as runtime product‐lines. In: Intl. ACM Sigsoft Symposium Component‐based SE Seinturier L, Almeida E, CarlsonJ, eds.; 2014:91‐96.
[24]
ISO international standard 26262: Road vehicles – Functional safety; 2011.
[25]
IEC international standard 61508: Functional safety standards. IEC; 2010.
[26]
SAE international standard 4761: Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment. SAE; 1996.
[27]
van der Hoek W, Wooldridge M. Multi‐Agent Systems. In: van Harmelen F, Lifschitz V, Porter B, eds. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Vol. 3. Amsterdam Netherlands: Elsevier; 2008:887‐928.
[28]
Ferber J. Multi‐Agent Systems ‐ An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Boston USA: Addison‐Wesley‐Longman; 1999.
[29]
Bowen TF, Dworack FS, Chow C‐H, Griffeth N, Herman GE, Lin Y‐J. The feature interaction problem in telecommunications systems. In: Int. Conf. on SE for Telecommunication Switching Systems. Bournemouth UK; 1989:59‐62.
[30]
Kimbler K, Bouma LG, eds. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems V. Amsterdam; Washington, DC; Tokyo: IOS Press; 1998.
[31]
Felty AP, Namjoshi KS. Feature specification and automated conflict detection. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol. 2003;12(1):3‐27.
[32]
Shiri MS, Hassine JH, Rilling J. Feature interaction analysis: a maintenance perspective. In: Proceedings of the Twenty‐second IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE '07. ACM; 2007; New York, NY, USA:437‐440.
[33]
Mao J, Chen L. Runtime monitoring for cyber‐physical systems: a case study of cooperative adaptive cruise control. In: 2012 Second International Conference on Intelligent System Design and Engineering Application. Sanya, Hainan, China; 2012:509‐515.
[34]
Ahluwalia J, Krüger IH, Phillips W, Meisinger M. Model‐based run‐time monitoring of end‐to‐end deadlines. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT '05. Association for Computing Machinery; 2005; New York, NY, USA:100‐109.
[35]
Caramihai SI, Dumitrache I. Urban traffic Monitoring and Control as a Cyber‐Physical System Approach, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 187 AISC. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2013.
[36]
Floch J, Hallsteinsen S, Stav E, Eliassen F, Lund K, Gjorven E. Using architecture models for runtime adaptability. IEEE Softw. 2006;23(2):62‐70.
[37]
Vařeková P, Zimmerova B, Moravec P, Černá I. Formal verification of systems with an unlimited number of components. IET Softw. 2008;2(6):532‐546.
[38]
Blay‐Fornarino M, Charfi A, Emsellem D, Pinna‐Déry A‐M, Riveill M. Software interactions. J Object Technol. 2004;3(10):161‐180.
[39]
Alda S, Won M, Cremers AB. Managing dependencies in component‐based distributed applications. In: Goos G, Hartmanis J, van Leeuwen J, Guelfi N, Astesiano E, Reggio G, eds. Scientific Engineering for Distributed Java Applications, Vol. 2604. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2003:143‐154.
[40]
Rolland C, Achour CB, Cauvet C, et al. A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Requirements Eng. 1998;3(1):23‐47 en.
[41]
Fard FH, Far BH. A method for detecting agents that will not cause emergent behavior in agent based systems—a case study in agent based auction systems. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 13th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration. Las Vegas, NV, USA: IRI 2012; 2012:185‐192.
[42]
Lempia D & Miller S Requirements Engineering Management Handbook; 2009.
[43]
Mauw S, Reiniers MA, Willemse TAC. Message sequence charts in the software engineering process. Handbook of Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering: Fundamentals. Singapore: World Scientific; 2002:437‐464.
[44]
Uchitel S, Kramer J, Magee J. Detecting implied scenarios in message sequence chart specifications. In: Gruhn V, ed. Proceeding of ESEC Tjoa AM. Vienna Austria; 2001:74‐82.
[45]
Letier E, Kramer J, Magee J, Uchitel S. Monitoring and control in scenario‐based requirements analysis. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. St. Louis MO USA: ICSE 2005. Proceedings; 2005:382‐391.
[46]
Alur R, Etessami K, Yannakakis M. Inference of message sequence charts. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 2003;29(7):623‐633.
[47]
Chen C‐A, Kalvala S, Sinclair J. Race conditions in message sequence charts. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J, et al., eds. Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 3780. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005:195‐211.
[48]
Mitchell B. Inherent causal orderings of partial order scenarios. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J, et al., eds. Theoretical Aspects of Computing ‐ ICTAC 2004, Vol. 3407. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005:113‐127.
[49]
Moshirpour M, Mousavi A, Far BH. Detecting emergent behavior in distributed systems using scenario‐based specifications. Int J Softw Eng Knowledge Eng. 2012;22(6):729‐746.
[50]
Miller J, Wood M, Roper M. Further experiences with scenarios and checklists. Empir Softw Eng. 1998;3(1):37‐64.
[51]
Basili VR, Green S, Laitenberger O, et al. The empirical investigation of perspective‐based reading. Empir Softw Eng. 1996;1(2):133‐164.
[52]
He L, Carver JC. PBR vs. checklist: A replication in the n‐fold inspection context. In: 2006 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2006) Travassos GH, Maldonado JC, Wohlin C, eds. ACM; 2006; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:95‐104.
[53]
Maldonado JC, Carver J, Shull F, et al. Perspective‐based reading: a replicated experiment focused on individual reviewer effectiveness. Empir Softw Eng. 2006;11(1):119‐142.
[54]
Porter AA, Votta LG, Basili VR. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Trans Software Eng. 1995;21(6):563‐575.
[55]
Porter AA, Votta LG. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replication using professional subjects. Empirical Softw Eng. 1998;3(4):355‐379.
[56]
Laitenberger O, Emam KE, Harbich TG. An internally replicated quasi‐experimental comparison of checklist and perspective‐based reading of code documents. IEEE Trans Software Eng. 2001;27(5):387‐421.
[57]
Berling T, Runeson P. Evaluation of a perspective based review method applied in an industrial setting. IEE Proc Softw. 2003;150(3):177‐184.
[58]
Sabaliauskaite G, Kusumoto S, Inoue K. Assessing defect detection performance of interacting teams in object‐oriented design inspection. Inform Softw Technol. 2004;46(13):875‐886.
[59]
Recommendation ITU‐T Z.120: Message Sequence Chart (MSC); 2016.
[60]
Daun M, Weyer T, Pohl K. Detecting and correcting outdated requirements in function‐centered engineering of embedded systems. Essen Germany; 2015:65‐80.
[61]
Weber M, Weisbrod J. Requirements engineering in automotive development‐experiences and challenges. In: Proceedings of IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 2002. Essen Germany; 2002:331‐340.
[62]
Hélouët L, Maigat PL. Decomposition of Message Sequence Charts. In: SAM 2000, 2nd Workshop on SDL and MSC, Col de Porte Sherratt E, ed. VERIMAG, IRISA, SDL Forum; 2000; Grenoble, France:47‐60.
[63]
Leveson NG. Intent specifications: an approach to building human‐centered specifications. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Third International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 1998. Colorado Springs, CO, USA; 1998:204‐213.
[64]
Daun M, Brings J, Bandyszak T, Bohn P, Weyer T. Collaborating multiple system instances of smart cyber‐physical systems: a problem situation, solution idea, and remaining research challenges. In: 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Engineering for Smart Cyber‐Physical Systems, SEsCPS 2015. IEEE; 2015; Florence, Italy:48‐51.
[65]
Daun M, Brings J, Obe PA, Stenkova V. Reliability of self‐rated experience and confidence as predictors for students' performance in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng. 2021;26(4):80.
[66]
Ricca F, Penta MD, Torchiano M, Tonella P, Ceccato M. The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2007. Minneapolis, MN, USA: ICSE 2007; 2007:375‐384.
[67]
Kochenderfer MJ, Holland JE, Chryssanthacopoulos JP. Next generation airborne collision avoidance system. Lincoln Lab J. 2012;19(1):17‐33.
[68]
Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sci. 2008;39(2):273‐315.
[69]
Vegas S, Apa C, Juristo N. Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: benefits and perils. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 2016;42(2):120‐135.
Recommendations
Do Instance-level Review Diagrams Support Validation Processes of Cyber-Physical System Specifications: Results from a Controlled Experiment
ICSSP '20: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System ProcessesIn the field of safety-critical systems, manual reviews are important to ensure high-quality software and to satisfy legal obligations. When applying model-based engineering approaches, no longer are only textual requirements specifications or software ...
Comparing Misuse Case and Mal-Activity Diagrams for Modelling Social Engineering Attacks
Understanding the social engineering threat is important in requirements engineering for security-critical information systems. Mal-activity diagrams have been proposed as being better than misuse cases for this purpose, but without any empirical ...
How are UML class diagrams built in practice? A usability study of two UML tools: Magicdraw and Papyrus
Highlights- This paper analyzes how UML class diagrams are built by analyzing 12 h of video recordings of students using MagicDraw and Papyrus to draw example class ...
AbstractSoftware modeling is a key activity in software development, especially when following any kind of Model Driven Software Engineering (MDSE) process. In this context, standard modeling languages, like the Unified Modeling Language (UML),...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 25 April 2023
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in