1. Modeling collaboration systems with Paradigm Suzana Andova joint work with Luuk Groenewegen (LIACS) and Erik de Vink (FSA)

2. Collaboration systems FSA Seminar

3. Modeling Complex systems = components + cooperation Component collaboration FSA Seminar

4. Complex systems = components + cooperationS Component collaboration Component collaboration Component collaboration

5. Separate concerns: 1. Only static architecture assignment collaboration of Gr.1 FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Student2

6. Separate concerns: 2. Collaboration dynamics FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment collaboration of Gr.1

7. Separate concerns: 3. Component (local) dynamics FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment collaboration of Gr.1

8. All together: collaboration on the assignment Gr.1 FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment collaboration of Gr.1

9. Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment Y collaboration of Gr.5 All together: collaboration on all assignments FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment X collaboration of Gr.1

10. Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment Y collaboration of Gr.5 What can go wrong? FSA Seminar Student1 Student3 Students2 assignment X collaboration of Gr.1 collaboration within the group! student’s own planning 1.Inconsistency in the collaborations 2.Inconsistency in the local planning and/or participation in the collaborations Conclusion: needed be modeled and analyzed together

11. Paradigm language – modeling power 1.Language for describing collaboration between components 2.Notions to specify all concerns: architecture, collaboration dynamics and local component dynamics in the language 3.To model consistencies between all these concepts 4.Paradigm is very much suitable for modeling of system reconfiguration/ adaptation/ evolution ( my favorite ), for instance adding or removing a component from a collaboration, changing the local behavior without destructing collaborations, etc.

12. Paradigm language – model analysis 1.Paradigm has formally defined semantics 2.Translation of Paradigm in Process algebra TCP has been formally defined 3.This allows for (yet manual) translation of Paradigm models to mCRL2, which further allows for model analysis 4.Adding probabilistic behaviour to Paradigm, still only via examples 5.Translation of these models to PRISM for quantitative analysis

13. Paradigm language – open ends 1.Paradigm has formally defined semantics 2.Translation of Paradigm in Process algebra TCP has been formally defined ?Which techniques can we use from PA to be applied directly to Paradigm? 3.Translation (yet manual) of Paradigm models to mCRL2, which further allows for model analysis ?Can we do better? More structure in the translation, thus closer to automated translation 4.Probe to add probabilistic behaviour to Paradigm, still only via examples ?To investigate how to integrate probabilistic semantics in Paradigm, more examples, generalization?  

14. For interested students 1.Will be given more examples of Paradigm models 2.Will be given PA and/or mCRL2 specifications to help understanding Paradigm models easily and quickly 3.Will be provided sufficient literature and supervision from me and/or Erik de Vink 4.Possibilities to extend this work to master projects Coordinates: Suzana Andova s.andova@tue.nl HG 5.36 phone: 5089 Erik de Vink evink@win.tue.nl HG 6.72 phone: 3146

15. Literature to start/continue with S. Andova, L.P.J. Groenewegen and E.P. de Vink, Dynamic Consistency in Process Algebra: From Paradigm to ACP, Science of Computer Programming 76(8), 2011, page 711-735. S. Andova, L.P.J. Groenewegen and E.P. de Vink, Towards reduction of Paradigm coordination models, Proc. PACO 2011, EPTCS 60, 2011. S. Andova, L.P.J. Groenewegen and E.P. de Vink, Towards Dynamic Adaptation of Probabilistic Systems, Proc. ISOLA 2010, LNCS 6416, 2010, page 143-159. FSA Seminar