Modelling and Analyzing based on AADL OSATE versus STOOD

1. Modelling and Analyzing based on AADLOSATEversus STOOD Farhana Rahman, Carleton University Yu Sun, University of Ottawa

2. Outline • Introduction • Scenario & Background • Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL) • STOOD & OSATE • Experimental Design • Evaluation Criteria & Method • Test Cases • Comparison, Analysis & Solution • Conclusion

3. Introduction XYZ Software System Inc. • Established in 2010 • A mid-sized start-up company • Focus on the development of real-time embedded systems time consuming & costly Figure 1. XYZ Software System Inc.

4. Introduction Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) • AADL, as an international industry standard, it • supports multiple analyses from a single architectural model • enables modeling and analysis throughout the life cycle • provides analysis of runtime behavior such as availability, performance, and security. Figure 2. Architectural Model

5. Introduction AADL Representations Figure 4. AADL Representations [1]

6. Introduction AADL Components Figure 5. AADL Components [1]

7. Introduction Candidate Tools: OSATE & STOOD • OSATE (Open-source AADL Tool Environment) [2] • Developed by Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University • Eclipse based, full language, full AADL XMI support • Integrated text and graphical editing with TOPCASED • Analysis plug-ins Figure 6. OSATE Plug-In Development for AADL

8. Introduction Candidate Tools: OSATE & STOOD • STOOD [3] • Commercial modelling tool developed by Ellidiss Software • AADL-related features • Legacy Ada and C code import • Industry standards compliance, including D0178B • Full UNIX/Windows interoperability • Provides state of the art real time software development offering UML 2.0 with full software modeling

9. Experimental Design Evaluation Criteria

10. Experimental Design Essential / Critical Criteria • Functional Features: Modelling • Strong support for both the AADL standard textual and graphical notations • Comply with the AADL syntax and semantics • Model import/export • Consistence between model and text • Functional Features: Models Verification and Basic Analysis • Ability of fault detecting at early deigned phase • Model statistic checking along with application

11. Experimental Design Important Criteria • Easiness of Use • Installation and system requirement • Training Requirement • Interface • More Support on Model Analyzing • Schedulability analysis • Problem identification • Technical Support • Supporting documentation available, such as tutorials, examples, on-line help, etc.

12. Experimental Design Desired Criteria • Code and Document Generation Essential code and document generated from the system model • Low Entry-cost / Pricing Lowest cost as possible

13. Experimental Design Methodology: NIH Scoring System [4]

14. Experimental Design Methodology: Scoring System

15. Experimental Design Methodology: Test Cases • Speed Control System A simplification of an aeronautical, automotive, or other vehicle speed control system. It includes a speed sensor that provides data to a controller. The controller outputs a command to a throttle actuator. • Avionics System Models, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University [5] command data sensor data

16. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Modelling (OSATE) textual design menu tool bar graphical design object model property settings

17. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Modelling (OSATE) No specification alert

18. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Modelling (STOOD) menu tool bar graphical design property settings textual design

19. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Modelling (STOOD) save changes graphical design only available ports shown textual design

20. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Modelling

21. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Model Verification & Basic Analysis (OSATE)

22. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Model Verification & Basic Analysis (OSATE) model statistics application statistics

23. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Model Verification & Basic Analysis (STOOD) different checking rules

24. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Model Verification & Basic Analysis (STOOD)

25. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Model Verification & Basic Analysis

26. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Easiness of Use

27. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: More Support on Model Analyzing (OSATE)

28. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: More Support on Model Analyzing (STOOD)

29. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: More Support on Model Analyzing

30. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Technical Support

31. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Document & Code Generation

32. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Comparison: Low Entry-cost

33. Comparison, Analysis & Solution Analysis & Solution

34. Conclusion Conclusion

35. References [1] P. H. Feiler, D. P. Gluch and J. J. Hudak, "The Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL): An Introduction“, Carnegie Mellon University, 2006. [2] Carnegie Mellon University, "AADL | Tool Integrators |Toolsets | OSATE“, Carnegie Mellon University, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.aadl.info/aadl/currentsite/tool/osate.html. [Accessed 2 2012]. [3] Ellidiss Software, "STOOD - Modeling Tools“, Ellidiss Software, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.ellidiss.com/stood.asp . [Accessed 2 2012]. [4] National Institute of Health, "Scoring System and Procedure“, Maryland, USA, 2008. [5] Software Engineering Institute, "SAE AADL Example Models “, Carnegie Mellon University, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.aadl.info/aadl/currentsite/examplemodel.html. [Accessed 2 2012].

36. Thank You!