Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 614635, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/614635
Research Article

Dependability Modeling and Assessment in UML-Based Software Development

1Centro Universitario de la Defensa, Academia General Militar, Zaragoza, Spain
2Departamento de Informática e Ingeniería de Sistemas, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
3Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6

Received 25 May 2012; Accepted 21 June 2012

Academic Editors: M. Sarfraz and D. Spinellis

Copyright © 2012 Simona Bernardi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B. Selic, “The pragmatics of model-driven development,” IEEE Software, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 19–25, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. H. Stephen Kan, Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston, Mass, USA, 1st edition, 1994.
  3. A. Avižienis, J. C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. Landwehr, “Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. G. Bolch, S. Greiner, H. de Meer, and K. Trivedi, Queueing Networks and Markov Chains, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1998.
  5. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, G. Chiola, G. Conte, S. Donatelli, and G. Franceschinis, “An introduction to generalized stochastic Petri nets,” Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 699–725, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. H. Hermanns, U. Herzog, and J. P. Katoen, “Process algebra for performance evaluation,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 274, no. 1-2, pp. 43–87, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. W. E. Vesely and N. H. Roberts, Fault Tree Handbook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987.
  8. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, R. Segala, and J. Sproston, “Automatic verification of real-time systems with discrete probability distributions,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 282, no. 1, pp. 101–150, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. Object Management Group, “Unified Modeling Language,” version 2.4.1, 2011, http://www.omg.org/.
  10. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon, “The Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL): an introduction,” Final report, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  11. S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner, A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language, Morgan Kaufmann, 2011.
  12. Object Management Group, “A UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded systems,” Document formal/2011-06-02, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  13. S. Bernardi, J. Merseguer, and D. C. Petriu, “A dependability profile within MARTE,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 313–336, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. J. Merseguer and S. Bernardi, “Dependability analysis of DES based on MARTE and UML state machines models,” Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, vol. 22, pp. 163–178, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. B. Randell and J. Xu, “The evolution of the recovery block concept,” in Software Fault Tolerance, M. R. Lyu, Ed., chapter 1, pp. 1–22, John Wiley and Sons, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  16. R. German, “New results for the analysis of deterministic and stochastic Petri nets,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium (IPDS '95), pp. 114–123, IEEE CS Press, April 1995. View at Scopus
  17. C. Kelling, Conventional and fast simulation techniques for Stochastic Petri Nets, Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich 13, Informatik, Berlin, Germany, 1996.
  18. S. Bernardi, J. Merseguer, and D. C. Petriu, “Dependability modeling and analysis of software systems specified with UML,” ACM Computing Survey. In press.
  19. A. Bondavalli, M. Dal Cin, D. Latella, I. Majzik, A. Pataricza, and G. Savoia, “Dependability analysis in the early phases of UML-based system design,” Computer Systems Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 265–275, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. I. Majzik, A. Pataricza, and A. Bondavalli, “Stochastic dependability analysis of system architecture based on UML models,” in Proceedings of the Architecting Dependable Systems, vol. 2677, pp. 219–244, Springer, 2003.
  21. G. J. Pai and J. B. Dugan, “Automatic synthesis of dynamic fault trees from UML system models,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 243–256, IEEE CS, Annapolis, Md, USA, 2002.
  22. A. D'Ambrogio, G. Iazeolla, and R. Mirandola, “A method for the prediction of software reliability,” in Proceedings of the 6th IASTED Software Engineering and Applications Conference (SEA '02), Cambridge, Mass, USA, November 2002.
  23. V. Cortellessa and A. Pompei, “Towards a UML profile for QoS: a contribution in the reliability domain,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP '04), pp. 197–206, January 2004. View at Scopus
  24. V. Grassi, R. Mirandola, and A. Sabetta, “From to analysis a models: a kernel language for performance and reliability analysis of component-based systems,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP '05), pp. 25–36, July 2005. View at Scopus
  25. V. Grassi, R. Mirandola, and A. Sabetta, “Filling the gap between design and performance/reliability models of component-based systems: a model-driven approach,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 528–558, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. SPT, “UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time,” Object Management Group Version 1.1, formal/05-01-02, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  27. QoS, “UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerant Characteristics and Mechanisms,” Object Management Group Version 1.0, formal/06-05-02, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  28. S. Bernardi, F. Flammini, S. Marrone, J. Merseguer, C. Papa, and V. Vittorini, “Model-driven availability evaluation of railway control systems,” in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP '11), F. Flammini, S. Bologna, and V. Vittorini, Eds., vol. 6894 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 15–28, Springer, 2011.
  29. M. Hneif and S. P. Lee, “Using guidelines to improve quality in software nonfunctional attributes,” IEEE Software, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 72–77, 2011. View at Google Scholar