1. Real-Time and Embedded Forum and TOGAF (19 Oct 2009) G. Edward Roberts Elparazim eroberts@elparazim.com

2. 2 What is the Problem? Workproduct Producer Business Visionary Descriptive Prescriptive Traceable? Complete Process for Multiple Domains Toolable … … process If one removed that Business Goal would the workproduct stop? Workproduct Business Goal

3. 3 Broader Picture of Tool Enterprise Tool Technical Architecture Business Goals Governance Organization Business Requirements Influencers ADL-Plus Tool Quality V&V >

6. Three Areas (Area 1) Expand TOGAF to include Real-time and Embedded concepts (Area 2) Integrate TOGAF with a much more prescriptive process such as RUP (Rational Unified Process) or openUp, for a complete Enterprise to working code approach to Real-time and Embedded projects (Area 3) Identify techniques and specifications that could be incorporated into the process to support Real-time and Embedded needs

8. (Area 1) Model TOGAF Model TOGAF in SPEM2 and use SPEM2’s generic ability to extend/replace the description as a way to let The Open Group’s various working groups publish their extensions independent of TOGAF. Also the use of SBVR looks promising to remove some of the ambiguity of statements in the standard.

9. Discussion of Area 1 Discussion of Wednesday Morning meeting at The Open Group’s Toronto Meeting Microkernel Kind of Architecture This was not just a RTESF problem Many groups wanted to extend TOGAF Example: Why do we have a SOA chapter in TOGAF itself? Need a “add-in” concept that is formal, and can be “mechanically combined”

17. 17 Area 2 – Integrate Processes Descriptive Prescriptive TOGAF Realm e.g. RUP or openUP Realm touchpoints workproducts > openUP SPEM 2 Model TOGAF SPEM 2 Model

18. Reference See http://www.aprocessgroup.com/products/pro duct_02_010402.asp http://www.aprocessgroup.com/products/pro duct_02_010402.asp

20. 20 (Area 3) Techniques TOGAF SysML AADL Acceleo ADL-Plus Specification UML2 RT Java 5 With Annotations ATL System Enterprise “Electronics” Software Implementations ADLPlus Runtime Phase D

21. SysA Metamodels of Interest SAEM (Software Assurance Evidence Metamodel) ARM (Argumentational Metamodel) These two meta-models could allow descriptions to be made of what would constitute Assuredness/dependiblity in a real- time system

22. 22 Updated SAEM 0809 artifacts Statements ‘Leaf’ Statements Things/Relations Claims & Arguments (ARM) Evidence Inferential support between statements Assurance Case ISO 15026 Propositions are based on a particular ontology Leaf Claims require non-inferential support Who did What When ontology/vocabulary Evidence document administrative Evidence element from ARM fact model Claims and subclaims

23. 23 Example Claim: “Dan Brown is a distinguished writer” Subclaim: “Dan Brown published many books” “A distinguished writer is one who published many books by reputable publishers and received favorable reviews by reputable critics Or one of whose books was selected as the basis for a movie script” Subclaim: “All books by Dan Brown were published by reputable publishers” Subclaim: “Two books by Dan Brown were selected for movie scripts” What: “a letter from Library of Congress listing all books published by Dan Brown” “Dan Brown is an individual who wrote the book “DaVinci Code” Fact: “Dan Brown wrote 7 books” Who: “Library of Congress staff” When: “15-09-2009” Content: “Dan Brown wrote “DaVinci Code” “Dan Brown wrote “Angels and Demons” Source: “Library of Congress content” AcquisitionMethod: “Letter of request”

24. 24 Example (1) Project( EvidenceFact(id06, ”Bob had Enhanced clearance from 01-10-1999 until 01-10-2000”, ”clearance.owl”, ”Person has Clearance”) ( EvidenceRole(id06,”Person”,id01), EvidenceRole(id06,”Clearance”,id04), StartTime(id06,”01-10-1999”), EndTime(id06,”01-10-2000”), Compliance(d01,true), CollectedBy(d01,id01), ApprovedBy(d01,id03), ProducedBy(id01,t01), AcquiredBy(id01,m01) ), EvidenceObject(id01,”personnel.owl”,”Person”,“Bob”), EvidenceObject(id03,”personnel.owl”,” Person”,“John”), EvidenceObject(id04,”clearance.owl”,”Clearance”,”Enhanced clearance”), EvidenceObject(id05,”clearance.owl”,”Clearance”,”Secret clearance”), Tool(t01,”xyz”), Method(m01,”dfdf asf sdfads fasdf asdfasdf”) )

25. Next Steps “drink our own champagne”, Architect TOGAF (perhaps with a modification of our own methods)[some work done here] Model TOGAF 9 in SPEM2, using Micro-Kernel concepts See if SBVR could be used to make statements unambiguous Study SAEM and ARM metamodels (description of certification) Do some prototyping

26. Tasks Task 1: Adjust TOGAF for extension (Model TOGAF – SPEM2, SBVR) Task 2: Go Through TOGAF and Note RTESF Differences/Additions Task 3: Work out how one Certifies RTES (includes SAEM and ARM) In Parallel Task 4: Work out how Technical Architecture Process Task 5: Work out how Technical Architecture Methodology (SysML, AADL,UML)

27. Backup

28. 28

29. 29 Technology and Standards Influences Framework Development Local Node Realtime Distributed Node Realtime Infrastructure: - Eclipse - Modelbus Modeling Standards: - SysML - UML2 - OCL Modeling Profiles: - MARTE - AADL -User Defined Modeling Tools: - Papyrus UML - TOPCASED - ATL MDA: - Acceleo - OSATE Languages: - Eclipse IDE Support - Java5 - Annotations - AspectJ - Others Unit Test: - JUnit - TTCN-3 Insitu Testing: -TPTP - AspectJ Loadtime Weaving - CBE (Common Base Event) All Open Source

30. 30 TTCN-3 Code Mock Objects UML 2.0 With OCL Agent Code Testing Environment Implementation Phase Analysis Phase Testing Phase TTCN-3 Engine MDA Tool Annotations XML JVM Instrumentation Rules, Viewer, and Diagnosis JMX Patterns MARTE Annotations Java Code ADL Plus Architecture SysML AADL

31. 31 Designer Roles INNOVATIONS

32. 32 Development Framework Workproducts and Components UML 2.0 Profiles (and Patterns) Diagnosis Code Per Feature Para Functional Specification Designer UML 2.0 Design Java Interface With Annotations System Designer Component Designer Component Tester Test Framework > MDA

33. Basic Flow 33 UML Profile > UML Model ExecuteWithin A > foo (a :int) pre: a < 3 OCL @interface ExecuteWithin Java Annotation MDA public class A { @NameList({“a”}) @OCL({“pre: a < 3”}) @ExecuteWithin(3000) public void foo(int a) {..} @Around(@ExecuteWith *..*(..)) public void instrumentation() AspectJ //CBE Statements Weaved TPTP MDA

34. 34 ExecuteWithin is a stereotype that is created by a para- functional designer in a UML2 Profile. It indicates that the Operation it marks should execute within the given nanoseconds. Para-Functional Specification Designer Note: it is marked With a stereotype of AnnotationCapture

35. 35 System Designer Operation bar in class C is marked with the para-functional Stereotype ExecuteWithin

36. 36 Code that is automatically generated from UML Design. This code is used by the Component Designer to add in the behavior part of the code. Component Designer

37. 37 Choosing to use Open Innovations Profiling Tester The Code from the component designer is executed in the tool

38. 38 Problem is Here Indication of a constraint @ExecuteWithin violation Tester The Tester can immediately see in the tool where the constraint violations happened and in which code.