Modeling collaboration systems with Paradigm
Suzana Andova
joint work with
Luuk Groenewegen (LIACS) and Erik de Vink (FSA)
Collaboration systems
FSA Seminar
Modeling Complex systems = components + cooperation
Component
Component
Component
collaboration
FSA Seminar
FSA Seminar
Complex systems = components + cooperationS
Component
Component
Component
collaborationComponent
Component
Component
collaboration
Component
Component
Component
collaboration
Separate concerns: 1. Only static architecture
assignmentcollaboration
of Gr.1
FSA Seminar
Student1
Student3
Student2
Separate concerns: 2. Collaboration dynamics
FSA Seminar
Student1
Student3
Students2
assignment collaboration of Gr.1
Separate concerns: 3. Component (local) dynamics
FSA Seminar
Student1
Student3
Students2
assignment collaboration of Gr.1
All together: collaboration on the assignment Gr.1
FSA Seminar
Student1
Student3
Students2
assignment collaboration of Gr.1
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
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
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.
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
Paradigm language – open ends
1. Paradigm has formally defined semantics2. 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 translation4. Probe to add probabilistic behaviour to Paradigm, still only
via examples? To investigate how to integrate probabilistic semantics in
Paradigm, more examples, generalization?
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 quickly3. 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 [email protected] 5.36phone: 5089
Erik de [email protected] 6.72phone: 3146
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
Top Related