MASE : Modeling & Analysis in Software Engineering School of Computing Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada Juergen Dingel CAMPAM, April 29, 2012

2 What do we do? Methods, techniques and tools for efficient construction of reliable software Methods, techniques and tools for efficient construction of reliable software by increasing support for abstraction, automation, and analysis increasing support for abstraction, automation, and analysis Model-Driven Development (MDD): A software development approach in which models, rather than code form the primary artifact analyze transform generate create RequirementsSoftware Models

3 A Historical Perspective 40 years ago: Require- ments Hard ware Today: Require- ments Hard ware Or, more technically: Or, more technically: [Source: B. Selic]

4 Our Current Projects Theme 1: UML-RT Formal semantics  “What does a model mean?” Execution, simulation, and correctness analysis  “Does the model do the right thing?”  using kiltera & model checking  using symbolic execution PSM conformance checking  “Is it safe to compose two models?” Incremental test case generation  “Making test case generation more efficient in the presence of model evolution” M ²  M : UML-RT ! pi-calculus C1 conforms to S? Components Interfaces S, S C1C2 M2 M1 TC1 update TC2 covered by ?

5 Our Current Projects (Cont’d) Theme 2: Model Transformation MT case studies  UML-RT to kiltera translation  GM metamodel migration MT and analysis  “How do MTs affect model analysis?”  Core idea:  Domain/task-specific model transformation languages  Trade expressiveness for analyzability MT for code generation  accurate code from timed models M2 M1 ² ²  ² ²  ? t preserves  ? t

6 Our Current Projects (Cont’d) Theme 3: Control Theory (CT) for SW Development “Can large body of knowledge on CT be leveraged for solving SE problems?” Yes, e.g., automatic generation of concurrency control code concurrent code ? ² +  CT

7 Topics  (Design of) (domain-specific) model transformation languages which “properties” (capabilities) does a MT language need to have to be fit for a certain class of MT tasks? which “properties” (capabilities) can be removed to facilitate reasoning about MTs?  Analysis of model transformations “The success of a language depends on its underlying theory” [JD]  How can the design of domain-specific MT languages support reasoning?  c.f., “correctness (e.g., property preservation/establishment) by construction” “The success of a language depends on its supporting tooling” [Bran Selic]  How can the generation of this tooling be facilitated?  c.f., language workbenches/frameworks/product lines (e.g., van den Brand et al., Atlee & Day)  Specification of model transformations “A program without a specification can never be correct, it can only be surprising” [?]  Analysis of models correctness, conformance, MBT, …

8 Criteria of Success  I’m flexible…

9 We have a workshop, too… Analysis of Model Transformations (AMT) at MODELS’12 first in a long series?

MASE : Modeling & Analysis in Software Engineering School of Computing Queen’s University Juergen Dingel April 13, 2012