A procedural and flexible approach for specification, modeling, definition, and analysis for self‐adaptive systems

Abstract

An adaptive system can modify its settings at runtime as a response to changes in its operational environment. To analyse this kind of systems at design time is a difficult task since it requires considering the system together with the adaptation operations, and taking into account how such adaptations act on the system. In order to use simulation-based techniques for the analysis of such systems, we not only need precise executable models of the systems to be analyzed, but also to capture the semantics of their adaptation mechanisms. Given the wide range and flexibility of adaptation operations, we need ways to allow the definition of new operations. We present a flexible approach for the definition and simulation-based analysis in design-time of adaptive component-based systems. Our approach combines an extension of the Palladio component model in e-Motions, a model of the adaptation mechanisms, and elastic requirements specification using the SYBL language. From the model of the system, its adaptation mechanisms, and its requirements, an executable Maude specification is generated for simulation. The application of the approach is illustrated on a use case that comprises some components and adaptations rules. The example is then analyzed using simulations. It is also shown that it is indeed possible to define additional metrics, specify adaptation requirements and rules which conduct simulations of the models in a more flexible way, and that the results of the simulation performed from these definitions can be used to carry on a valuable predictive performance analysis. K E Y W O R D Sadaptation specification, design-time analysis, modeling, self-adaptive behavior, self-adaptive models INTRODUCTIONSoftware architecture has become an essential element in building consistent systems as the size and complexity of software systems have increased. The necessity to take into account not only the overall structure of the system itself but also the allocation, functionality, and communication of the software components became a challenge for building

Multi-paradigm modeling for cyber–physical systems: A systematic mapping review

“…Regarding the combination of the identified integration mechanisms, the most frequent combination is Model Transformations and Links [51,65,31,66]. The combinations of Model Transformations and Metamodel Composition [67,68], Model Transformations and Co-Simulation [34,65], Links and Metamodel Composition [69] and Links and Co-Simulation [65] are also found.…”

“…These were classified into the categories of Table 4, mainly distinguishing model-related tasks. All 153 MPM approaches support at least one of the aforementioned phases, 67 (43.8%) support exactly one phase, 61 (39.9%) support exactly 2 phases, 12 (7.8%) support exactly 3 phases, 4 (2.6%) support exactly 4 phases, while 9 studies are complete (i.e., covering all phases) [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].…”

Autonomic computing and incremental learning for the management of big services

“…To achieve this goal, we first introduce the concept of autonomic big service . This self‐managed service‐based ecosystem inherits the principles of self‐adaptive systems 53 and autonomic computing, 22 which make it similar to large‐scale autonomic systems. In fact, its heterogeneous units of composition, including services, sensors, IoT objects, data sources and so forth represent the building block managed resources of an autonomic big service.…”

A Semantic Model of Internet of Things for Intelligent Translation and Learning

“…Semantic collaboration realizes the information sharing between different things in the Internet of things by solving the problem of semantic heterogeneity. Semantic collaboration mainly uses semantic correlation analysis and semantic mapping to deal with semantic heterogeneity in the Internet of things [19]. On the basis of judging the correlation between heterogeneous semantics, semantic mapping is used to transform unrelated semantics, and a mapping relationship is established.…”