Real-Time and Embedded Forumand TOGAF

(19 Oct 2009)

G. Edward RobertsElparazim

eroberts@elparazim.com

2

What is the Problem?

WorkproductProducer

BusinessVisionary

Descriptive

Prescriptive

Traceable?

Complete Process for Multiple Domains

Toolable

…

…process

If one removed that Business Goal would the workproduct stop?

Workproduct

BusinessGoal

3

Broader Picture of Tool

Enterprise Tool

TechnicalArchitecture

BusinessGoals

Governance

OrganizationBusinessRequirements

Influencers

ADL-Plus Tool

QualityV&V

<<uses>>

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

(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.

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

Area 2 – Integrate Processes

Descriptive

Prescriptive

TOGAF Realm

e.g. RUP or openUP Realm

touchpoints

workproducts<<flow>>

<<produce>>

<<reference>>

openUP SPEM 2 Model

TOGAF SPEM 2 Model

Reference

• See http://www.aprocessgroup.com/products/product_02_010402.asp

20

(Area 3) Techniques

TOGAF

SysML

AADL

AcceleoADL-Plus Specification

UML2

RT Java 5With Annotations

ATL

ATL

System

Enterprise

“Electronics”

Software

ImplementationsADLPlus Runtime

Phase D

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

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 Whenontology/vocabulary

Evidence documentadministrative

Evidence element

from ARM

fact model

Claims and subclaims

23

ExampleClaim: “Dan Brown is a distinguished writer”

Subclaim: “Dan Brown published many books”

“A distinguished writer is one who published many books by reputable publishers andreceived favorable reviews by reputable criticsOr 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

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”))

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

TasksTask 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)

Backup

28

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

TTCN-3Code

Mock Objects

UML 2.0 With OCL Agent Code

Testing Environment

Implementation Phase

Analysis Phase

Testing Phase

TTCN-3 Engine

MDA Tool

Annotations

XML

JVMInstrumentation

Rules,Viewer, and Diagnosis

JMX

JMX

Patterns

MARTE

AnnotationsJava Code

ADL Plus Architecture

SysML

AADL

31

Designer Roles

INNOVATIONS

uc Specifications

System

Framework Designer

Para Functional Specification

Designer

Modeler

Java Programmer

System Designer

Component Designer

Design Framework

Design Para Functional

Specification

Design System

Design Component

Framework

Para Functional

Specification

System

Component

Model

Java Code

Tester

32

Development Framework Workproducts and Components

UML 2.0Profiles (and Patterns)

DiagnosisCode

Per

Fea

ture

Para FunctionalSpecificationDesigner

UML 2.0Design

Java InterfaceWith Annotations

SystemDesigner

ComponentDesigner

Component

Tester

Test Framework

<<uses>>

<<uses>>

MDA

Basic Flow

33

UML Profile

<<stereotype>>

UML Model

ExecuteWithin

A

<<ExecuteWithin>> foo (a :int) pre: a < 3

OCL

@interface ExecuteWithin

Java AnnotationMDA

public class A {@NameList({“a”})@OCL({“pre: a < 3”})@ExecuteWithin(3000)public void foo(int a) {..}

@Around(@ExecuteWith *..*(..))public void instrumentation()

AspectJ

//CBE Statements

WeavedTPTP

MDA

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-FunctionalSpecificationDesigner

Note: it is markedWith a stereotype of AnnotationCapture

35

SystemDesigner

Operation bar in class C ismarked with the para-functionalStereotype ExecuteWithin

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.

ComponentDesigner

37

Choosing to use Open Innovations Profiling

Tester

The Code from the component designer is executed in the tool

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.