Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 5/2020

04.07.2019 | Special Section Paper

Incorporating measurement uncertainty into OCL/UML primitive datatypes

verfasst von: Manuel F. Bertoa, Loli Burgueño, Nathalie Moreno, Antonio Vallecillo

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The correct representation of the relevant properties of a system is an essential requirement for the effective use and wide adoption of model-based practices in industry. Uncertainty is one of the inherent properties of any measurement or estimation that is obtained in any physical setting; as such, it must be considered when modeling software systems deal with real data. Although a few modeling languages enable the representation of measurement uncertainty, these aspects are not normally incorporated into their type systems. Therefore, operating with uncertain values and propagating their uncertainty become cumbersome processes, which hinder their realization in real environments. This paper proposes an extension of OCL/UML primitive datatypes that enables the representation of the uncertainty that comes from physical measurements or user estimates into the models, together with an algebra of operations that are defined for the values of these types.
Vorheriger Artikel A verified catalogue of OCL optimisations
Nächster Artikel A semi-automated BPMN-based framework for detecting conflicts between security, data-minimization, and fairness requirements

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
This is inspired by how various simple robots operate, in particular, Ozobot robots (https://​ozobot.​com).
 
2
Operations on basic datatypes normally use infix notation (e.g., \(x+y\), \(a<b\), \(P \ {\texttt {and}}\ Q\)). This is the notation that we already support in our USE implementation for the newly defined types (UReal, UBoolean, etc.). However, other languages that we have used to implement these new types (e.g., Java) do not support infix notation. Therefore, in the following we will use either an infix or prefix notation (x.add(y), a.lt(b), P.and(Q)) for the operations of these types, depending on the context and the language used.
 
3
Although a confidence value of 0.9 is rather low, it may occur due to restricted visibility on foggy days, for instance.
 
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
America, P.: Inheritance and subtyping in a parallel object-oriented language. In: Proceedings of ECOOP’87, pp. 234–242. Springer (1987)
4.
America, P.: A Behavioural Approach to Subtyping in Object-Oriented Programming Languages, pp. 173–190. Wiley, Hoboken (1991)
5.
Bertoa, M.F., Moreno, N., Barquero, G., Burgueño, L., Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: Expressing measurement uncertainty in OCL/UML datatypes. In: Proceedings of ECMFA’18, LNCS, vol. 10890, pp. 46–62. Springer (2018)
6.
7.
Boute, R.T.: A heretical view on type embedding. ACM Sigplan Not. 25(1), 25–28 (1990)CrossRef
8.
Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2012)CrossRef
9.
Broy, M.: Challenges in modeling cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of ISPN’13, pp. 5–6. IEEE (2013)
10.
11.
12.
Burgueño, L., Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Vallecillo, A.: Using physical quantities in robot software models. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Robotics Software Engineering (RoSE’18), pp. 23–28. ACM (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​3196558.​3196562
13.
Büttner, F., Gogolla, M.: On OCL-based imperative languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 92, 162–178 (2014)CrossRef
14.
Cabot, J., Mazón, J., Pardillo, J., Trujillo, J.: Specifying aggregation functions in multidimensional models with OCL. In: Proceedings of ER’10, LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 419–432. Springer (2010)
15.
Ciccozzi, F., Ruscio, D.D., Malavolta, I., Pelliccione, P.: Adopting MDE for specifying and executing civilian missions of mobile multi-robot systems. IEEE Access 4, 6451–6466 (2016)CrossRef
16.
Ciccozzi, F., Seceleanu, T., Corcoran, D., Scholle, D.: UML-based development of embedded real-time software on multi-core in practice: lessons learned and future perspectives. IEEE Access 4, 6528–6540 (2016)CrossRef
17.
Clerici, S., Orejas, F.: GSBL: An algebraic specification language based on inheritance. In: S. Gjessing, K. Nygaard (eds.) Proceedings of ECOOP’88, pp. 78–92. Springer (1988)
18.
Dou, W., Bianculli, D., Briand, L.C.: OCLR: a more expressive, pattern-based temporal extension of OCL. In: Proceedings of ECMFA’14, LNCS, vol. 8569, pp. 51–66. Springer (2014)
19.
20.
Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Managing uncertainty in bidirectional model transformations. In: Proceedings of SLE’15, pp. 49–58. ACM (2015)
21.
22.
Esfahani, N., Malek, S.: Uncertainty in self-adaptive software systems. In: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II, no. 7475 in LNCS, pp. 214–238. Springer (2013)
23.
Famelis, M., Rubin, J., Czarnecki, K., Salay, R., Chechik, M.: Software product lines with design choices: reasoning about variability and design uncertainty. In: Proceedings of MODELS’17, pp. 93–100 (2017)
24.
Famelis, M., Salay, R., Chechik, M.: Partial models: towards modeling and reasoning with uncertainty. In: Proceedings of ICSE’12, pp. 573–583. IEEE Press (2012)
25.
26.
Garlan, D.: Software Engineering in an uncertain world. In: Proceedings of the FoSER Workshop at FSE/SDP 2010, pp. 125–128. ACM (2010)
27.
Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: a UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Prog. 69, 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRef
28.
Goldberg, D.: What every computer scientist should know about floating-point arithmetic. ACM Comput. Surv. 23(1), 5–48 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRef
29.
30.
Guy, C., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., Steel, J.R.H., Jézéquel, J.M.: On model subtyping. In: Proceedings of ECMFA’12, LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 400–415. Springer (2012)
31.
Hall, B.D.: Component interfaces that support measurement uncertainty. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 28(3), 306–310 (2006)CrossRef
32.
IEEE Std 1003.1-2008: The Open Group Base Specifications. Issue 7, Sect. 4.16, Seconds Since the Epoch (2016)
33.
ISO/IEC 25010:2011: Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models. ISO/IEC (2011)
34.
35.
36.
37.
Jiménez-Ramírez, A., Weber, B., Barba, I., del Valle, C.: Generating optimized configurable business process models in scenarios subject to uncertainty. Inf. Softw. Technol. 57, 571–594 (2015)CrossRef
38.
Kchir, S., Dhouib, S., Tatibouet, J., Gradoussoff, B., Simoes, M.D.S.: Robotml for industrial robots: design and simulation of manipulation scenarios. In: Proceedings of ETFA’16, pp. 1–8 (2016)
39.
Khan, M.U., Arshad, N., Iqbal, M.Z., Umar, H.: AspectOCL: Extending OCL for crosscutting constraints. In: Proceedings of ECMFA’15, LNCS, vol. 9153, pp. 92–107. Springer (2015)
40.
Kosko, B.: Fuzziness vs probability. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 17(2–3), 211–240 (1990)CrossRef
41.
Kyas, M.: An extended type system for OCL supporting templates and transformations. In: Proceedings of FMOODS’05, LNCS, vol. 3535, pp. 83–98. Springer (2005)
42.
43.
Lee, E.A.: Cyber physical systems: design challenges. In: Proceedings of ISORC’08, pp. 363–369. IEEE (2008)
44.
Letier, E., Stefan, D., Barr, E.T.: Uncertainty, risk, and information value in software requirements and architecture. In: Proceedings of ICSE’14, pp. 883–894. ACM (2014)
45.
Levenshtein, V.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Sov. Phys. Dokl. 10, 707 (1966)MathSciNet
46.
Liskov, B.H., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(6), 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRef
47.
Littlewood, B., Neil, M., Ostrolenk, G.: The role of models in managing the uncertainty of software-intensive systems. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf 50(1), 87–95 (1995)CrossRef
48.
Liu, B.: Uncertainty Theory, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin (2018)
49.
50.
Mosterman, P.J., Zander, J.: Industry 4.0 as a cyber-physical system study. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1), 17–29 (2016)CrossRef
51.
Oberkampf, W.L., DeLand, S.M., Rutherford, B.M., Diegert, K.V., Alvin, K.F.: Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf. 75(3), 333–357 (2002)CrossRef
52.
Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language (OCL) Specification. Version 2.2 (2010). OMG Document formal/01 Feb 2010
53.
Object Management Group: UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. Version 1.1 (2011). OMG Document formal/02 June 2010
54.
Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification. Version 2.5 (2015). OMG document formal/01 March 2015
55.
Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML), version 1.4 (2016). OMG Document formal/05 January 2015
56.
Object Management Group: Structured Metrics Metamodel (SMM) Specification. Version 1.2 (2018). OMG Document formal/01 May 2018
57.
Pardillo, J., Mazón, J.N., Trujillo, J.: Extending OCL for OLAP querying on conceptual multidimensional models of data warehouses. Inf. Sci. 180(5), 584–601 (2010)CrossRef
58.
Salay, R., Chechik, M., Horkoff, J., Sandro, A.: Managing requirements uncertainty with partial models. Requir. Eng. 18(2), 107–128 (2013)CrossRef
59.
Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRef
60.
61.
Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)MATH
62.
Vallecillo, A., Gogolla, M.: Adding random operations to OCL. In: Proceedings of MoDeVVa’17, no. 2019 in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 324–328 (2017)
63.
Vallecillo, A., Morcillo, C., Orue, P.: Expressing measurement uncertainty in software models. In: Proceedings of QUATIC’16, pp. 1–10 (2016)
64.
65.
Wolf, M.: A modeling language for measurement uncertainty evaluation. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2009)
66.
67.
Zhang, M., Selic, B., Ali, S., Yue, T., Okariz, O., Norgren, R.: Understanding uncertainty in cyber-physical systems: a conceptual model. In: Proceedings of ECMFA’16, LNCS, vol. 9764, pp. 247–264. Springer (2016)
68.
Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy Set Theory—and Its Applications, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin (2001)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Incorporating measurement uncertainty into OCL/UML primitive datatypes
verfasst von
Manuel F. Bertoa
Loli Burgueño
Nathalie Moreno
Antonio Vallecillo
Publikationsdatum
04.07.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00741-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Software and Systems Modeling 5/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Guest Editorial

Modeling research in recent years: special section on ECMFA 2017 and ECMFA 2018

Special Section Paper

A verified catalogue of OCL optimisations

Special Section Paper

Integrated model-driven development of self-adaptive user interfaces

Expert Voice

Opportunities in intelligent modeling assistance

Special Section Paper

Modelling multi-criticality vehicular software systems: evolution of an industrial component model

Special Section Paper

Automatic generation of UML profile graphical editors for Papyrus