Barbed Model-Driven Software Development: A Case Study

When thinking of MDE, the immediate understanding is that models drive software development, in the sense that the software is constructed by transforming models from higher levels of abstraction to the point where we reach a model which is executable with the desired degree of quality characteristics. What tends to be less evident, is that, precisely in order to reach the desired quality, many other models are used in the verification and assessment of the solutions under consideration at the various stages of development. That is, looking at the development process, besides a spine of model transformations moving from highly abstract, domain related models down to concrete platform related models (programs), we can see a number of barbs, relating models in the spine to specialized models that permit specific analysis of parts of the software. In this paper we report on some preliminary work on understanding Barbed Model-Driven Software Development. We are taking an experimental attitude, designing and implementing a barb, using specific technologies and verification tools. The goal is twofold: to get acquainted with the technologies, and to provide a first assessment of their suitability for subsequent explorations. In the experiment experiment the barb deals with the verification of properties of a SOA system modelled in UML.

[1]  Mikael Buchholtz,et al.  For-LySa: UML for Authentication Analysis , 2004, Global Computing.

[2]  LerouxD.,et al.  Rational software architect , 2006 .

[3]  Dániel Varró,et al.  VPM: A visual, precise and multilevel metamodeling framework for describing mathematical domains and UML (The Mathematics of Metamodeling is Metamodeling Mathematics) , 2003, Software & Systems Modeling.

[4]  Stephen Gilmore,et al.  End-to-End Integrated Security and Performance Analysis on the DEGAS Choreographer Platform , 2005, FM.

[5]  Matt Brown,et al.  Invited talk , 2007 .

[6]  Maurice H. ter Beek,et al.  An Action/State-Based Model-Checking Approach for the Analysis of Communication Protocols for Service-Oriented Applications , 2007, FMICS.

[7]  Jan Jürjens,et al.  UMLsec: Extending UML for Secure Systems Development , 2002, UML.

[8]  Massimo Bartoletti,et al.  Secure Service Composition , 2006 .

[9]  A. Fantechi,et al.  An action / state-based model-checking approach for the analysis of an asynchronous protocol for Service-Oriented Applications ? , 2007 .

[10]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Advanced model transformation language constructs in the VIATRA2 framework , 2006, SAC.

[11]  Gabriele Taentzer,et al.  Generation of visual editors as eclipse plug-ins , 2005, ASE.

[12]  Gian Luigi Ferrari,et al.  Planning and verifying service composition , 2009, J. Comput. Secur..

[13]  Jane Hillston,et al.  Process algebras for quantitative analysis , 2005, 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS' 05).

[14]  Gian Luigi Ferrari,et al.  Security Issues in Service Composition , 2006, FMOODS.

[15]  Stuart Kent,et al.  Model Driven Engineering , 2002, IFM.

[16]  Donald Sannella,et al.  Essential concepts of algebraic specification and program development , 1997, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[17]  Jan Juerjens,et al.  Automated Theorem Proving for Cryptographic Protocols with Automatic Attack Generation , 2004 .

[18]  Jan Jürjens,et al.  Secure systems development with UML , 2004 .

[19]  J. Cheney,et al.  A sequent calculus for nominal logic , 2004, LICS 2004.

[20]  Flemming Nielson,et al.  Automatic validation of protocol narration , 2003, 16th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 2003. Proceedings..

[21]  Hisham M. Haddad.  Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing , 2006, SAC.

[22]  Renato Baserga,et al.  Politically correct , 1995, Nature.

[23]  Gian Luigi Ferrari,et al.  Types and Effects for Resource Usage Analysis , 2007, FoSSaCS.

[24]  Douglas C. Schmidt,et al.  Guest Editor's Introduction: Model-Driven Engineering , 2006, Computer.