Mapping COSA Software Architecture Concepts into UML 2.0

Khammaci, Tahar; Smeda, Adel; Oussalah, Mourad

doi:10.1109/icis-comsar.2006.56

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The description languages are typically categorized into two classes. The first class is Architecture Description Languages (ADLs) [4,12,17,24], and the second one is automata-based models [3,[7][8][9], where automata-based methods are more general and formal than ADLs.…”

Section: Motivation and Historical Perspective Of The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To model hierarchical designs (for hierarchical distributed systems-item 3 in Sect. 1.1) and consequently, benefit from advantages of architectural description languages (ADLs) like, SOFA [4], COSA [12,24], and Darwin [17], once again we use the notion of a node, defined in Sect. 3.2.…”

Section: The Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Architecture Description Languages (ADLs), like SOFA [4], COSA [12,24], and Darwin [17] are very suitable for the specification of distributed and hierarchical component architectures with defined interconnections among components and behavioral constraints put on the component communications and interactions. However, ADLs are less formal and usually are not supported by automated verification tools.…”

Section: Nodementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A new formalism for mathematical description and verification of component-based systems

Isazadeh

Karimpour

2008

J Supercomput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we introduce a formal approach for composing software components into a distributed system. We describe the system as a hierarchical composition of some components, which can be distributed on a wide variety of hardware platforms and executed in parallel. We represent each component by a mathematical model and specify the abstract communication protocols of the components using Interface Automata (IAs). To model hierarchical systems, besides the basic components' model, we will present other components, called nodes. A node consists of a set of subnodes interacting under the supervision of a controller. Each subnode, in turn, is a node or discrete event component. By considering a subnode as a node we can make hierarchical nodes/components. The entire system, therefore, forms the root of the hierarchy. A controller, in turn, is a set of subcontrollers/interface automata that specifies interaction protocol of the components inside a node. We have also presented an example demonstrating the model by illustrating nodes, subnodes, controllers, and subcontrollers. To address the state space explosion problem in system verification, we utilize the controller as a contract for independent analysis of the components and their interactions. Therefore, a node will not be analyzed directly; instead, we will analyze the controller.

show abstract