Simulation Evolution and Modernization

The evolution of simulations and models during their operational use is inevitable. Constant change in technology and user requirements is the core reason. It comes up with aging and erosion of the software systems. Thus, in time, assets are started to be categorized as legacy. Software modernization has been introduced as the methodology for comprehending and transforming legacy software systems. Basically inspired by MDE, model-driven reverse engineering (MDRE) is proposed as the major approach to tackle knowledge extraction from available assets. Then canonical model transformations and forward engineering MDE practices are promoted for transforming legacy software. The Object Management Group (OMG) promoted architecture-driven modernization (ADM) as the process of understanding and transformation of existing software assets with model-driven principles that have been supported by various metamodels, tools, and languages. This chapter introduces simulation evolution and modernization. It presents and adopts the software modernization approaches, particularly ADM, for simulation modernization. After providing a background on tools, methods, and approaches that have been proposed for software modernization, a recent research effort is revealed that adopts and extends ADM, particularly the knowledge discovery metamodel (KDM), for simulation modernization.

[1]  Bernard P. Zeigler,et al.  System entity structuring and model base management , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[2]  Meir M. Lehman.  Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution , 1980 .

[3]  Harry M. Sneed,et al.  Estimating the costs of a reengineering project , 2005, 12th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE'05).

[4]  Ingrid Bausch-Gall Consultant.  CONTINUOUS SYSTEM SIMULATION LANGUAGES , 1987 .

[5]  Bernard P. Zeigler,et al.  Modeling & Simulation-Based Data Engineering: Introducing Pragmatics into Ontologies for Net-Centric Information Exchange , 2007 .

[6]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  Software aging , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[7]  Steve Zammit.  Conversion of existing FORTRAN simulation programs to a general purpose simulation language , 1988 .

[8]  Dewayne E. Perry,et al.  Implications of evolution metrics on software maintenance , 1998, Proceedings. International Conference on Software Maintenance (Cat. No. 98CB36272).

[9]  Dimka Karastoyanova,et al.  Using Services and Service Compositions to Enable the Distributed Execution of Legacy Simulation Applications , 2011, ServiceWave.

[10]  Nelson Weiderman,et al.  Options Analysis for Reengineering (OAR): Issues and Conceptual Approach , 1999 .

[11]  Meir M. Lehman,et al.  On understanding laws, evolution, and conservation in the large-program life cycle , 1984, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  F. J. Sansom,et al.  The SCi Continuous System Simulation Language (CSSL) , 1967 .

[13]  Umut Durak.  Extending the Knowledge Discovery Metamodel for architecture-driven simulation modernization , 2015, Simul..

[14]  Jordi Cabot,et al.  MoDisco: a generic and extensible framework for model driven reverse engineering , 2010, ASE.

[15]  John A. Miller,et al.  DeMO: An Ontology for Discrete-event Modeling and Simulation , 2011, Simul..

[16]  Giuseppe Visaggio,et al.  Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice Ageing of a Data-intensive Legacy System: Symptoms and Remedies , 2022 .

[17]  Bronius Paradauskas,et al.  BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE EXTRACTION FROM LEGACY INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 2006 .

[18]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[19]  M. Trcka Radosevic,et al.  Distributed Building Performance Simulation—A Novel Approach to Overcome Legacy Code Limitations , 2006 .

[20]  James H. Cross,et al.  Reverse engineering and design recovery: a taxonomy , 1990, IEEE Software.

[21]  Jordi Cabot,et al.  MoDisco: A model driven reverse engineering framework , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..