nach oben

Software and Systems Modeling

Erschienen in:

08.01.2021 | Regular Paper

Uncertainty representation in software models: a survey

verfasst von: Javier Troya, Nathalie Moreno, Manuel F. Bertoa, Antonio Vallecillo

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of research work on how uncertainty is currently represented in software models. The survey presents the definitions and current research status of different proposals for addressing uncertainty modeling and introduces a classification framework that allows to compare and classify existing proposals, analyze their current status and identify new trends. In addition, we discuss possible future research directions, opportunities and challenges.

Vorheriger Artikel Using recommender systems to improve proactive modeling

Nächster Artikel What is a process model composed of?

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

http://www.jabref.org/.

https://www.zotero.org/.

Verification and validation are two controversial terms, to which different people assign different meanings. In this context we will use the meanings defined and used in ISO standards [162].

Agli, H., Bonnard, P., Gonzales, C., Wuillemin, P.: Business rules uncertainty management with probabilistic relational models. In: Proceedings of RuleML’16, LNCS, vol. 9718, pp. 53–67. Springer (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_4

Ali, S., Basit-Ur-Rahim, M.A., Arif, F.: Formal verification of time constrains SysML internal block diagram using PRISM. In: Proceedings of ICCSA’15, pp. 62–66. IEEE Computer Society, USA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSA.2015.11

Bagheri, E., Ghorbani, A.A.: Experiences on the belief-theoretic integration of para-consistent conceptual models. In: Proceedings of ASWEC’08, pp. 357–366. IEEE (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASWEC.2008.4483224

Bagheri, E., Ghorbani, A.A.: A belief-theoretic framework for the collaborative development and integration of para-consistent conceptual models. J. Syst. Softw. 82(4), 707–729 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.10.012CrossRef

Baresi, L., Pasquale, L., Spoletini, P.: Fuzzy goals for requirements-driven adaptation. In: 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/re.2010.25

Bertoa, M.F., Burgueño, L., Moreno, N., Vallecillo, A.: Incorporating measurement uncertainty into OCL/UML primitive datatypes. Softw. Syst. Model. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00741-0CrossRef

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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92997-2_4

Blanco, I.J., Marin, N., Pons, O., Vila, M.A.: Softening the object-oriented database model: imprecision, uncertainty, and fuzzy types. In: Proceedings of NAFIPS’01, vol. 4, pp. 2323–2328 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2001.944435

Brambilla, M., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G., Umuhoza, E.: Enhancing flexibility in user interaction modeling by adding design uncertainty to IFML. In: Proceedings of FLEXMDE@MODELS’17, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2019, pp. 435–440. CEUR-WS.org (2017). URL http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2019/flexmde_9.pdf

10.

Bucaioni, A., Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Mubeen, S., Pierantonio, A., Sjödin, M.: Handling uncertainty in automatically generated implementation models in the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of SEAA’16, pp. 173–180 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2016.32

11.

Burgueño, L., Bertoa, M.F., Moreno, N., Vallecillo, A.: Expressing confidence in models and in model transformation elements. In: Proceedings of MODELS’18, pp. 57–66. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3239372.3239394

12.

Burgueño, L., Clarisó, R., Cabot, J., Gérard, S., Vallecillo, A.: Belief uncertainty in software models. In: Proceedings of MiSE@ICSE’19, pp. 19–26. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/MiSE.2019.00011

13.

Burgueño, L., Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Vallecillo, A.: Using physical quantities in robot software models. In: Proceedings of RoSE@MODELS’18, pp. 23–28. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196558.3196562

14.

Burgueño, L., Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Vallecillo, A.: Specifying quantities in software models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 113, 82–97 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.05.006CrossRef

15.

Cámara, J., Peng, W., Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.R.: Reasoning about sensing uncertainty and its reduction in decision-making for self-adaptation. Sci. Comput. Program. 167, 51–69 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2018.07.002CrossRefMATH

16.

Chang, E.J., Hussain, F.K., Dillon, T.S.: Fuzzy nature of trust and dynamic trust modeling in service oriented environments. In: Proceedings of SWS@CCS’05, pp. 75–83. ACM (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1103022.1103036

17.

Chechik, M., Kokaly, S., Rahimi, M., Salay, R., Viger, T.: Uncertainty, modeling and safety assurance: towards a unified framework. In: Proceedings of VSTTE’19, LNCS, vol. 12031, pp. 19–29. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41600-3_2

18.

Chen, X., Cheng, H., Wang, H., Li, W.: Fuzzy spatiotemporal object modeling based on UML class diagram. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33(5), 2727–2736 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169322CrossRef

19.

Chen, X., Yan, L., Li, W., Ma, Z.: Reengineering fuzzy spatiotemporal UML data model into fuzzy spatiotemporal XML model. IEEE Access 5, 17975–17987 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2745540CrossRef

20.

Cheng, B.H.C., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Whittle, J.: A goal-based modeling approach to develop requirements of an adaptive system with environmental uncertainty. In: Proceedings of MODELS’09, LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 468–483. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_36

21.

Cheng, S.W., Garlan, D.: Handling uncertainty in autonomic systems. In: Proceedings of IWLU@ASE’07. ACM (2007). URL http://se.cs.toronto.edu/IWLU/papers/Autonomic_Cheng.pdf

22.

Cheung, L., Golubchik, L., Medvidovic, N., Sukhatme, G.S.: Identifying and addressing uncertainty in architecture-level software reliability modeling. In: Proceedings of IPDPS’07, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2007.370524

23.

Crossland, R., Williams, J.H.S., McMahon, C.A.: An object-oriented modeling framework for representing uncertainty in early variant design. Res. Eng. Design 14(3), 173–183 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0039-zCrossRef

24.

D’Emilia, G., Paolone, G., Natale, E., Gaspari, A., Villano, D.D.: Business modeling of a measurement-based context: a methodological process. In: Proceedings of ICSOFT-EA’15’, vol. 1, pp. 1–8. SciTePress (2015). https://doi.org/10.5220/0005499402690276

25.

Diskin, Z., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Czarnecki, K.: Incorporating uncertainty into bidirectional model transformations and their delta-lens formalization. In: Proceedings of BX@ETAPS’16, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1571, pp. 15–31. CEUR-WS.org (2016). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1571/paper_9.pdf

26.

Dong, Q., Wang, Z., Zhu, W., He, H.: Capability requirements modeling and verification based on fuzzy ontology. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 23(1), 78–87 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEE.2012.00011CrossRef

27.

Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Managing uncertainty in bidirectional model transformations. In: Proceedings of SLE’15, pp. 49–58. ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2814251.2814259

28.

Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Approaching collaborative modeling as an uncertainty reduction process. In: Proceedings of COMMitMDE@MODELS’16, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1717, pp. 27–34. CEUR-WS.org (2016). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1717/paper7.pdf

29.

Esfahani, N., Elkhodary, A.M., Malek, S.: A learning-based framework for engineering feature-oriented self-adaptive software systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(11), 1467–1493 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2013.37CrossRef

30.

Esfahani, N., Malek, S., Razavi, K.: Guidearch: guiding the exploration of architectural solution space under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of ICSE’13, pp. 43–52. IEEE Computer Society (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606550

31.

Famelis, M., Chechik, M.: Managing design-time uncertainty. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(2), 1249–1284 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0594-9CrossRef

32.

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. IEEE Computer Society (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/models.2017.3

33.

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). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227159

34.

Famelis, M., Santosa, S.: MAV-Vis: a notation for model uncertainty. In: Proceedings of MiSE@ICSE’13, pp. 7–12. IEEE (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/MiSE.2013.6595289

35.

García-Valls, M., Perez-Palacin, D., Mirandola, R.: Pragmatic cyber physical systems design based on parametric models. J. Syst. Softw. 144, 559–572 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.06.044CrossRef

36.

Garousi, V.: Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed real-time systems based on UML models in the presence of time uncertainty. In: Proceedings of ICST’08, pp. 92–101. IEEE Computer Society (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2008.7

37.

Garredu, S., Bisgambiglia, P.A., Vittori, E., Santucci, J.F.: A New Approach to Describe DEVS Models Using Both UML State Machine Diagrams and Fuzzy Logic. In: Proceedings of EMSS’10, pp. 215–221. SCS (2010)

38.

Geng, S., Peng, J., Li, P.: Modeling and verification of cyber-physical systems under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of ICNC-FSKD’17, pp. 1491–1496 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/FSKD.2017.8392986

39.

Giese, H., Bencomo, N., Pasquale, L., Ramirez, A.J., Inverardi, P., Wätzoldt, S., Clarke, S.: Living with uncertainty in the age of runtime models. In: Models@run.time, LNCS, vol. 8378, pp. 47–100. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08915-7_3

40.

Gogolla, M., Vallecillo, A.: On softening OCL invariants. J. Object Technol. 18(2), 6:1–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2019.18.2.a6CrossRef

41.

Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Modelling temporality and subjectivity in ConML: short paper. In: Proceedings of RCIS’13, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2013.6577685

42.

Hacks, S., Lichter, H.: A probabilistic enterprise architecture model evolution. In: Proceedings of EDOC’18’, pp. 51–57. IEEE Computer Society (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2018.00017

43.

Hall, B.D.: Component interfaces that support measurement uncertainty. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 28(3), 306–310 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2005.07.009CrossRef

44.

Han, D., Yang, Q., Xing, J.: Extending UML for the modeling of fuzzy self-adaptive software systems. In: Proceedings of CCDC’14, pp. 2400–2406. IEEE (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2014.6852575

45.

Han, D., Yang, Q., Xing, J., Li, J., Wang, H.: FAME: a UML-based framework for modeling fuzzy self-adaptive software. Inf. Softw. Technol. 76(C), 118–134 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.014CrossRef

46.

Haroonabadi, A., Teshnehlab, M., Movaghar, A.: A novel method for modeling and evaluation of uncertain information systems. In: Proceedings of ICIT’08, pp. 238–243. IEEE Computer Society (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2008.24

47.

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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.006CrossRef

48.

Johnson, P., Iacob, M.E., Välja, M., Sinderen, M., Magnusson, C., Ladhe, T.: A method for predicting the probability of business network profitability. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 12(4), 567–593 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-014-0237-4CrossRef

49.

Johnson, P., Ullberg, J., Buschle, M., Franke, U., Shahzad, K.: An architecture modeling framework for probabilistic prediction. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 12(4), 595–622 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-014-0241-8CrossRef

50.

Khalfi, B., de Runz, C., Faiz, S., Akdag, H.: Modélisation conceptuelle d’objets géographiques imprécis et multiples : Une approche basée F-Perceptory. In: Proceedings of SAGEO’15, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1535, pp. 297–311. CEUR-WS.org (2015). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1535/paper-21.pdf

51.

Koehler, H., Link, S., Prade, H., Zhou, X.: Cardinality constraints for uncertain data. In: Proceedings of ER’14, LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 108–121. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_9

52.

Laghouaouta, Y., Laforcade, P.: Dealing with uncertainty in model transformations. In: Proceedings of SAC’20, pp. 1595—1603. ACM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3341105.3373971

53.

López-Landa, R., Noguez, J.: PRoModel: a model-driven software environment that facilitates and expedites the development of systems that handle uncertainty. In: Proceedings of SpringSim’12, p. 41. SCS/ACM (2012)

54.

Ma, T., Ali, S., Yue, T., Elaasar, M.: Testing self-healing cyber-physical systems under uncertainty: a fragility-oriented approach. Softw. Qual. J. 27(2), 615–649 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-018-9437-3CrossRef

55.

Ma, Z.: The fuzzy ER/EER and UML data models, pp. 59–77 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11353270_4

56.

Ma, Z., Zhang, F., Yan, L., Cheng, J.: Fuzzy description logic and ontology extraction from fuzzy data models. In: Fuzzy knowledge management for the semantic web, vol. 306, pp. 99–156. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39283-2_5

57.

Ma, Z.M.: Modeling Fuzzy Information in the EER and Nested Relational Database Models, pp. 123–146. Springer (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33289-8_5

58.

Ma, Z.M., Yan, L.: Fuzzy XML data modeling with the UML and relational data models. Data Knowl. Eng. 63(3), 972–996 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2007.06.003CrossRef

59.

Ma, Z.M., Yan, L., Zhang, F.: Modeling fuzzy information in UML class diagrams and object-oriented database models. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 186(1), 26–46 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2011.06.015MathSciNetCrossRef

60.

Ma, Z.M., Zhang, F., Yan, L.: Fuzzy information modeling in UML class diagram and relational database models. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(6), 4236–4245 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.03.020CrossRef

61.

Ma, Z.M., Zhang, F., Yan, L., Cheng, J.: Representing and reasoning on fuzzy UML models: a description logic approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(3), 2536–2549 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.042CrossRef

62.

Martín-Rodilla, P., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Representing imprecise and uncertain knowledge in digital humanities: a theoretical framework and conml implementation with a real case study. In: Proceedings of TEEM’18, pp. 863–871. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284318

63.

Martin-Rodilla, P., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Conceptualization and non-relational implementation of ontological and epistemic vagueness of information in digital humanities. Inform. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6020020CrossRef

64.

Martín-Rodilla, P., Gonzalez-Perez, M.P.F.C.: Qualifying and quantifying uncertainty in digital humanities: a fuzzy-logic approach. In: Proceedings of TEEM’19, pp. 788–794. ACM (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362833

65.

Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Vallecillo, A.: Adding uncertainty and units to quantity types in software models. In: Proceedings of SLE’16, pp. 118–131. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2997364.2997376

66.

McKeever, S., Ye, J., Coyle, L., Dobson, S.: A context quality model to support transparent reasoning with uncertain context. In: Proceedings of QuaCon’09, LNCS, vol. 5786, pp. 65–75. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04559-2_6

67.

Menghi, C., Spoletini, P., Chechik, M., Ghezzi, C.: A verification-driven framework for iterative design of controllers. Form. Asp. Comput. 31(5), 459–502 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-019-00484-1MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

68.

Motameni, H., Ghassempouri, T., Nematzadeh, H.: Evaluating the reliability of communication diagram using Fuzzy Petri net. In: Proceedings of ICSEES’11, pp. 520–523. IEEE (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSESS.2011.5982367

69.

Nasiri, R., Moeini, A., Abdollahzadeh, A.: A new approach towards procurement of software models via distributed business models. J. Supercomput. 29(3), 287–302 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SUPE.0000032782.92290.52CrossRefMATH

70.

Object Management Group: Structured Metrics Metamodel (SMM) Specification. Version 1.2 (2018). OMG Document formal/18-05-01

71.

Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML), version 1.6 (2019). OMG Document formal/19-11-01

72.

Object Management Group: UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. Version 1.2 (2019). OMG Document formal/19-04-01

73.

Oquendo, F.: Coping with uncertainty in systems-of-systems architecture modeling on the IoT with SosADL. In: Proceedings of SoSE’19, pp. 131–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753842

74.

Ortiz, V., Burgueño, L., Vallecillo, A., Gogolla, M.: Native support for UML and OCL primitive datatypes enriched with uncertainty in USE. In: Proceedings of OCL@MODELS’19, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2513, pp. 59–66. CEUR-WS.org (2019). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2513/paper5.pdf

75.

Ozgur, N.B., Koyuncu, M., Yazici, A.: An intelligent fuzzy object-oriented database framework for video database applications. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(15), 2253–2274 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2009.02.017MathSciNetCrossRef

76.

Packevicius, S., Usaniov, A., Bareisa, E.: Software testing using imprecise OCL constraints as oracles. In: Proceedings of CompSysTech’07, pp. 1–6. ACM (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330726

77.

Refsdal, A., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Underspecification, inherent nondeterminism and probability in sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of FMOODS’06, LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 138–155. Springer (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11768869_12

78.

Refsdal, A., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Stepwise refinement of sequence diagrams with soft real-time constraints. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 81(7), 1221–1251 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2015.03.003MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

79.

Refsdal, A., Solhaug, B., Stolen, K.: A UML-based method for the development of policies to support trust management. In: Trust Management II, vol. 263, pp. 33+. IFIP (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09428-1_3

80.

Refsdal, A., Stølen, K.: Extending UML sequence diagrams to model trust-dependent behavior with the aim to support risk analysis. Sci. Comput. Program. 74(1–2), 34–42 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2008.09.003MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

81.

Robak, S., Pieczynski, A.: Employing fuzzy logic in feature diagrams to model variability in software product-lines. In: Proceedings of ECBS’03, pp. 305–311. IEEE Computer Society (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.2003.1194812

82.

Runde, R.K., Refsdal, A., Stølen, K.: Relating computer systems to sequence diagrams: the impact of underspecification and inherent nondeterminism. Form. Asp. Comput. 25(2), 159–187 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-011-0192-5MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

83.

Salay, R., Chechik, M.: A generalized formal framework for partial modeling. In: Proceedings of FASE’15, LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 133–148. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_9

84.

Salay, R., Chechik, M., Famelis, M., Gorzny, J.: A methodology for verifying refinements of partial models. J. Object Technol. 14(3), 3:1–31 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2015.14.3.a3CrossRef

85.

Salay, R., Chechik, M., Horkoff, J., Sandro, A.D.: Managing requirements uncertainty with partial models. Requir. Eng. 18(2), 107–128 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-013-0170-yCrossRef

86.

Salay, R., Gorzny, J., Chechik, M.: Change propagation due to uncertainty change. In: Proceedings of FASE’13, LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 21–36. Springer (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_3

87.

Sedaghatbaf, A., Azgomi, M.A.: Reliability evaluation of UML/DAM software architectures under parameter uncertainty. IET Softw. 12(3), 236–244 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0077CrossRef

88.

Sheng, J., Yan, L., Ma, Z.: Modeling probabilistic data with fuzzy probability measures in UML class diagrams. In: Proceedings of IFSA/NAFIPS’19, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1000, pp. 589–600. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21920-8_52

89.

Shin, S.Y., Chaouch, K., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: HITECS: a UML profile and analysis framework for hardware-in-the-loop testing of cyber physical systems. In: Proceedings of MODELS’18, pp. 357–367. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3239372.3239382

90.

Sibay, G.E., Braberman, V.A., Uchitel, S., Kramer, J.: Synthesizing modal transition systems from triggered scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(7), 975–1001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.62CrossRef

91.

Sicilia, M.A., Diaz, P., Aedo, I., Garcia, E.: Fuzziness in adaptive hypermedia models. In: Proceedings of NAFIPS’02, pp. 268–273 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2002.1018068

92.

Sicilia, M.A., Mastorakis, N.: Extending UML 1.5 for fuzzy conceptual modeling: an strictly additive approach. WSEAS Trans. Syst. 3(5), 2234–2239 (2004)

93.

de Soto, A.R., Capdevila, C.A., Fernández, E.C.: Fuzzy systems and neural networks XML schemas for soft computing. Mathw. Soft Comput. 10(2–3), 43–56 (2003)MATH

94.

Stephenson, Z.R., Attwood, K., McDermid, J.A.: Product-line models to address requirements uncertainty, volatility and risk, pp. 111–131. Springer (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21001-3_8

95.

Thomas, O., Dollmann, T.: Fuzzy-EPC markup language: XML based interchange formats for fuzzy process models. In: Soft Computing in XML Data Management, vol. 255, pp. 227–257. Springer (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14010-5_9

96.

Troegner, D.: Combination of fuzzy sets with the object constraint language (OCL). In: Proceedings of Informatik’10, LNI, vol. P-176, pp. 705–710 (2010). https://dl.gi.de/20.500.12116/19308

97.

Tseng, C., Khamisy, W., Vu, T.: Universal fuzzy system representation with XML. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 28(2), 218–230 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2004.11.005CrossRef

98.

Tudoroiu, R., Astilean, A., Letia, T., Neacsu, G., Maroszy, Z., Tudoroiu, N.: Fuzzy UML and petri nets modeling investigations on the pollution impact on the air quality in the vicinity of the black sea constanta romanian resort. In: Proceedings of FedCSIS’11, pp. 763–766 (2011)

99.

Turowski, K., Weng, U.: Representing and processing fuzzy information—an xml-based approach. Knowl. Based Syst. 15(1–2), 67–75 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(01)00122-8CrossRef

100.

Ubayashi, N., Kamei, Y., Sato, R.: Modular programming and reasoning for living with uncertainty. In: Proceedings of ICSOFT’18, vol. 1077, pp. 220–244. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29157-0_10

101.

Uchitel, S., Brunet, G., Chechik, M.: Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(3), 384–406 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2008.107CrossRef

102.

Vallecillo, A., Morcillo, C., Orue, P.: Expressing measurement uncertainty in software models. In: Proceedings of QUATIC’16, pp. 15–24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2016.013

103.

Voudouris, V.: Towards a unifying formalisation of geographic representation: the object-field model with uncertainty and semantics. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 24(12), 1811–1828 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.488237CrossRef

104.

Voudouris, V., Wood, J., Fisher, P.F.: Collaborative geovisualization: object-field representations with semantic and uncertainty information. In: Proceedings of OTM’05 Workshops, LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 1056–1065. Springer (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11575863_128

105.

Voudouris, V., Wood, J., Fisher, P.F.: Capturing and Representing Conceptualization Uncertainty Interactively Using Object-Fields, pp. 755–770. Springer, Berlin (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-35589-8_47

106.

Wang, Y., Bai, L.: Fuzzy spatiotemporal data modeling based on UML. IEEE Access 7, 45405–45416 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908224CrossRef

107.

Whittle, J., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Cheng, B.H.C., Bruel, J.: RELAX: incorporating uncertainty into the specification of self-adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of RE’09, pp. 79–88. IEEE Computer Society (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2009.36

108.

Whittle, J., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Cheng, B.H.C., Bruel, J.: RELAX: a language to address uncertainty in self-adaptive systems requirements. Requir. Eng. 15(2), 177–196 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-010-0101-0CrossRef

109.

Xiao, J., Pinel, P., Pi, L., Aranega, V., Baron, C.: Modeling uncertain and imprecise information in process modeling with UML. In: Proceedings of ICMD’08, pp. 237–240. Computer Society of India/Allied Publishers (2008)

110.

Xu, S., Miao, W., Kunz, T., Wei, T., Chen, M.: Quantitative analysis of variation-aware internet of things designs using statistical model checking. In: Proceedings of QRS’16, pp. 274–285. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS.2016.39

111.

Yan, L., Ma, Z.: A probabilistic object-oriented database model with fuzzy measures, pp. 23–38. Springer, Berlin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37509-5_2

112.

Yan, L., Ma, Z.: A probabilistic object-oriented database model with fuzzy probability measures and its algebraic operations. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 28(5), 1969–1984 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-141307MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

113.

Yan, L., Ma, Z.: A formal approach for graphically building fuzzy XML model. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34(11), 3058–3076 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22188CrossRef

114.

Yan, L., Ma, Z.M.: Extending engineering data model for web-based fuzzy information modeling. Integr. Comput. Aided Eng. 20(4), 407–420 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3233/ICA-130440CrossRef

115.

Yang, Z., Jin, Z., Li, Z.: Modeling Uncertainty and Evolving Self-Adaptive Software: A Fuzzy Theory Based Requirements Engineering Approach. CoRR arXiv:abs/1704.00873 (2017)

116.

Yazici, A., Zhu, Q., Sun, N.: Semantic data modeling of spatiotemporal database applications. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 16(7), 881–904 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.1040CrossRefMATH

117.

Zhang, F., Cheng, J.: Verification of fuzzy UML models with fuzzy description logic. Appl. Soft Comput. 73, 134–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.08.025CrossRef

118.

Zhang, F., Ma, Z.M.: Construction of fuzzy ontologies from fuzzy UML models. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 6(3), 442–472 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2013.780735CrossRef

119.

Zhang, M., Ali, S., Yue, T., Norgre, R.: Uncertainty-wise evolution of test ready models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 87, 140–159 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.03.003CrossRef

120.

Zhang, M., Ali, S., Yue, T., Norgren, R., Okariz, O.: Uncertainty-wise cyber-physical system test modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(2), 1379–1418 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0609-6CrossRef

121.

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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42061-5_16

122.

Zhang, M., Yue, T., Ali, S., Selic, B., Okariz, O., Norgren, R., Intxausti, K.: Specifying uncertainty in use case models. J. Syst. Softw. 144, 573–603 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.06.075CrossRef

123.

Zhou, B., Lu, J., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Miao, Z.: Formalizing fuzzy UML class diagrams with fuzzy description logics. In: Proceedings of IITA’09, vol. 1, pp. 171–174 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IITA.2009.97

124.

Albers, A., Zingel, C.: Extending SysML for engineering designers by integration of the contact and channel—approach (C&C\({}^{\text{2 }}\)-A) for function-based modeling of technical systems. Procedia Comput. Sci. 16, 353–362 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.037CrossRef

125.

Alevizos, E., Skarlatidis, A., Artikis, A., Paliouras, G.: Probabilistic complex event recognition: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 50(5), 71:1–71:31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3117809CrossRef

126.

Association for Computing Machinery: ACM Computing Classification System (2012). https://dl.acm.org/ccs

127.

Balsamo, S., Marco, A.D., Inverardi, P., Simeoni, M.: Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5), 295–310 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2004.9CrossRef

128.

Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: Dependability modeling and analysis of software systems specified with UML. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(1), 2:1–2:48 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2379776.2379778CrossRefMATH

129.

Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: Model-Driven Dependability Assessment of Software Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRef

130.

Blair, G.S., Bencomo, N., France, R.B.: Models@run.time. IEEE Comput. 42(10), 22–27 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.326CrossRef

131.

Bosc, P., Pivert, O.: Modeling and querying uncertain relational databases: a survey of approaches based on the possible worlds semantics. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 18(5), 565–603 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488510006702MathSciNetCrossRef

132.

Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Proceedings of CAV’99, LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 274–287. Springer (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48683-6_25

133.

Bucchiarone, A., Cabot, J., Paige, R.F., Pierantonio, A.: Grand challenges in model-driven engineering: an analysis of the state of the research. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 5–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00773-6CrossRef

134.

Büttner, F., Gogolla, M.: On OCL-based imperative languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 92, 162–178 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2013.10.003CrossRef

135.

Cámara, J., Garlan, D., Kang, W.G., Peng, W., Schmerl, B.R.: Uncertainty in self-adaptive systems: categories, management, and perspectives. Technical Report CMU-ISR-17-110, Carnegie Mellon University (2017). http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isr2017/CMU-ISR-17-110.pdf

136.

Chen, M.: A BDI agents programming language based fuzzy beliefs. In: Proceedings of IHMSC’15, vol. 1, pp. 334–337 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/IHMSC.2015.170

137.

Ciccozzi, F., Malavolta, I., Selic, B.: Execution of UML models: a systematic review of research and practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(3), 2313–2360 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0675-4CrossRef

138.

Console, M., Guagliardo, P., Libkin, L.: Propositional and predicate logics of incomplete information. In: Proceedings of KR’18, pp. 592–601. AAAI Press (2018)

139.

Cortellessa, V., Marco, A.D., Inverardi, P.: Model-Based Software Performance Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13621-4CrossRef

140.

Cova, T.J., Goodchild, M.F.: Extending geographical representation to include fields of spatial objects. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 16(6), 509–532 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810210137040CrossRef

141.

Dajsuren, Y., van den Brand, M. (eds.): Automotive Systems and Software Engineering—State of the Art and Future Trends. Springer, Berlin (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12157-0

142.

Darwiche, A.: Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRef

143.

Dugan, J.B., Bavuso, S.J., Boyd, M.A.: Dynamic fault-tree models for fault-tolerant computer systems. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 41(3), 363–377 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/24.159800CrossRefMATH

144.

Esfahani, N., Malek, S.: Uncertainty in self-adaptive software systems. In: R. de Lemos, et al. (eds.) Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II, LNCS, vol. 7475, pp. 214–238. Springer (2013)

145.

Feller, W.: An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)MATH

146.

de Finetti, B.: Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. Wiley, Hoboken (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119286387CrossRefMATH

147.

Garlan, D.: Software engineering in an uncertain world. In: Proceedings of the FoSER Workshop at FSE/SDP 2010, pp. 125–128. ACM (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1882362.1882389

148.

Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Massink, M.: A stochastic extension of a behavioural subset of UML statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of HASE’00, pp. 55–64. IEEE Computer Society (2000). https://doi.org/10.1109/HASE.2000.895442

149.

Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: a UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Program. 69(1–3), 27–34 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2007.01.013MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

150.

González, C.A., Cabot, J.: Formal verification of static software models in MDE: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(8), 821–838 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.03.003CrossRef

151.

Greengard, S.: The Internet of Things. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2015)CrossRef

152.

Hall, B.D.: GTC: The GUM Tree Calculator (2020). https://github.com/MSLNZ/GTC

153.

Hall, B.D., White, D.R.: An Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty. Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand (2018). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3872590

154.

Hanss, M.: Applied Fuzzy Arithmetic. An Introduction with Engineering Applications. Springer, Berlin (2005)MATH

155.

Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play, Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Berlin (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19029-2

156.

Hariri, R.H., Fredericks, E.M., Bowers, K.M.: Uncertainty in big data analytics: survey, opportunities, and challenges. J. Big Data 6, 44 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0206-3CrossRef

157.

Hermanns, H., Herzog, U., Katoen, J.: Process algebra for performance evaluation. Theor. Comput. Sci. 274(1–2), 43–87 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00305-4MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

158.

Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E.: Influence diagrams. Decis. Anal. 2(3), 127–143 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1050.0020CrossRef

159.

Humphrey, W.S.: Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework. IEEE Softw. 5(2), 73–79 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1109/52.2014MathSciNetCrossRef

160.

Immonen, A., Niemelä, E.: Survey of reliability and availability prediction methods from the viewpoint of software architecture. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(1), 49–65 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0040-xCrossRef

161.

Islam, F., Petriu, D.C., Woodside, C.M.: Simplifying layered queuing network models. In: Proceeding of EPEW’15, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9272, pp. 65–79. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23267-6_5

162.

ISO 9000:2015: Quality management systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary (2015). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9000:ed-4:v1:en

163.

JCGM 100:2008: Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2008). http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf

164.

Jøsang, A.: Subjective Logic—A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42337-1

165.

Karkhanis, P., van den Brand, M.G.J., Rajkarnikar, S.: Defining the C-ITS reference architecture. In: ICSA’18 Companion, pp. 148–151. IEEE Computer Society (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSA-C.2018.00044

166.

Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Technical Report TR/SE-0401, Keele University (2004). http://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/kitchenham.pdf

167.

Kiureghian, A.D., Ditlevsen, O.: Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct. Saf. 31(2), 105–112 (2009)CrossRef

168.

Koziolek, H.: Performance evaluation of component-based software systems: a survey. Perform. Eval. 67(8), 634–658 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peva.2009.07.007CrossRef

169.

Kwon, W.T., Park, N.C., Jung, S.H.J., Kim, T.G.: Fuzzy-DEVS formalism: concepts, realization and applications. In: Proceedings of AIS’96, pp. 227—234 (1996)

170.

van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering—From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

171.

Lano, K., Rahimi, S.K., Tehrani, S.Y., Sharbaf, M.: A survey of model transformation design patterns in practice. J. Syst. Softw. 140, 48–73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.001CrossRef

172.

Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A modal process logic. In: Proceedings of LICS’88, pp. 203–210. IEEE Computer Society (1988). https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.1988.5119

173.

Lebigot, E.O.: Uncertainties: a Python package for calculations with uncertainties (2017). https://pythonhosted.org/uncertainties/

174.

Lee, E.A., Sirjani, M.: What good are models? In: Proceedings of FACS’18, LNCS, vol. 11222, pp. 3–31. Springer (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02146-7_1

175.

Li, L., Wang, H., Li, J., Gao, H.: A survey of uncertain data management. Front. Comput. Sci. 14(1), 162–190 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-017-7063-zCrossRef

176.

Liu, B.: Uncertainty Theory, 5 edn. Springer, Berlin (2018). http://orsc.edu.cn/liu/ut.pdf

177.

Looney, C.G.: Fuzzy petri nets for rule-based decision-making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 18(1), 178–183 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1109/21.87067CrossRef

178.

Ma, Z.M., Yan, L.: A literature overview of fuzzy conceptual data modeling. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 26(2), 427–441 (2010)

179.

Maccaferri, L.: Using Zotero to convert Springer Link CSV search result to BibTex format (2017). https://www.leniel.net/2017/06/using-zotero-to-convert-springerlink-full-csv-search-result-to-bibtex-format.html

180.

Mahdavi-Hezavehi, S., Avgeriou, P., Weyns, D.: A Classification Framework of Uncertainty in Architecture-Based Self-Adaptive Systems With Multiple Quality Requirements, Chap. 3, pp. 45–47. Morgan Kaufmann (2017). B978-0-12-802855-1.00003-4

181.

Manzano, M.A., de Felipe-Rodríguez, H., Gago-Gómez, L.: DICTOMAGRED: Diccionario de Toponimia Magrebí (2018). https://dictomagred.usal.es/

182.

Marsan, M.A., Balbo, G., Conte, G., Donatelli, S., Franceschinis, G.: Modelling with Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets. Wiley, Hoboken (1995)MATH

183.

Marsan, M.A., Conte, G., Balbo, G.: A class of generalized stochastic petri nets for the performance evaluation of multiprocessor systems. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2(2), 93–122 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1145/190.191CrossRef

184.

ickMoon, S., Lee, K.H., Lee, D.: Fuzzy branching temporal logic. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Part B Cybernet. 34(2), 1045–1055 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2003.819485CrossRef

185.

Moreno, G.A., Cámara, J., Garlan, D., Klein, M.: Uncertainty reduction in self-adaptive systems. In: Andersson, J., Weyns, D. (eds.) Proceedings of SEAMS@ICSE’18, pp. 51–57. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3194133.3194144

186.

Moreno, N., Bertoa, M.F., Burgueño, L., Vallecillo, A.: Managing measurement and occurrence uncertainty in complex event processing systems. IEEE Access 7, 88026–88048 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2923953CrossRef

187.

Mosterman, P.J., Zander, J.: Industry 4.0 as a cyber-physical system study. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1), 17–29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0493-xCrossRef

188.

Novák, P.: Probabilistic behavioural state machines. In: Proceedings of ProMAS’09, LNCS, vol. 5919, pp. 67–81. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14843-9_5

189.

Oberkampf, W.L., DeLand, S.M., Rutherford, B.M., Diegert, K.V., Alvin, K.F.: Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 75(3), 333–357 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00120-XCrossRef

190.

Object Management Group: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time. Version 1.1 (2005). OMG Document formal/05-01-02

191.

Object Management Group: UML Testing Profile, version 1.2 (2013). OMG Document formal/13-04-03

192.

Object Management Group: Interaction Flow Modeling Language (IFML), version 1.0 (2015). OMG Document formal/15-02-05

193.

Object Management Group: Precise Semantics for Uncertainty Modeling (PSUM) RFP (2017). OMG Document ad/2017-12-1

194.

Object Management Group: Semantics Of A Foundational Subset For Executable UML Models (FUML), version 1.4 (2018). OMG Document formal/18-12-01

195.

Othman, N.A., Eldin, A.S., Zanfaly, D.S.E.: Handling uncertainty in database: an introduction and brief survey. Comput. Inf. Sci. 8(3), 119–133 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v8n3p119CrossRef

196.

Pearl, J.: A probabilistic calculus of actions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’94), pp. 454–462. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)

197.

Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)MATH

198.

Pearl, J., Mackenzie, D.: The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books, New York (2018)MATH

199.

Perez-Palacin, D., Mirandola, R.: Uncertainties in the modeling of self-adaptive systems: a taxonomy and an example of availability evaluation. In: Proceedings of ICPE’14, pp. 3–14. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2568088.2568095

200.

Pivert, O., Prade, H.: Handling uncertainty in relational databases with possibility theory—a survey of different modelings. In: Proceedings of SUM’18, LNCS, vol. 11142, pp. 396–404. Springer (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3_30

201.

Ramirez, A.J., Jensen, A.C., Cheng, B.H.C.: A taxonomy of uncertainty for dynamically adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of SEAMS’12, pp. 99–108. IEEE Computer Society (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAMS.2012.6224396

202.

Rausand, M.: Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)MATH

203.

Refsdal, A.: Specifying computer systems with probabilistic sequence diagrams. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Norway (2008). https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/9873

204.

Rinderknecht, S.L., Borsuk, M.E., Reichert, P.: Bridging uncertain and ambiguous knowledge with imprecise probabilities. Environ. Model. Softw. 36, 122–130 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.022CrossRef

205.

Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2010)MATH

206.

Sadegh-Zadeh, K.: Fuzzy deontics. In: Soft Computing in Humanities and Social Sciences, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 273, pp. 141–156. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24672-2_7

207.

Salih, A.M., Omar, M., Yasin, A.: Understanding uncertainty of software requirements engineering: a systematic literature review protocol. In: Proceeding of APRES’17, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 809, pp. 164–171. Springer (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7796-8_13

208.

Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., Tarantola, S.: Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley, Hoboken (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470725184

209.

Saoud, Z., Faci, N., Maamar, Z., Benslimane, D.: A fuzzy-based credibility model to assess Web services trust under uncertainty. J. Syst. Softw. 122, 496–506 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.040CrossRef

210.

Seely, A.J., Macklem, P.T.: Complex systems and the technology of variability analysis. Crit. Care 8, 367–384 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2948CrossRef

211.

Selic, B.: Beyond mere logic—a vision of modeling languages for the 21st century. In: Proceedings of MODELSWARD 2015 and PECCS 2015, pp. IS–5. SciTePress (2015). http://cescit2015.um.si/Presentations/KN_Selic.pdf

212.

Senaratne, H., Gerharz, L., Pebesma, E., Schwering, A.: Usability of spatio-temporal uncertainty visualisation methods. In: Bridging the Geographic Information Sciences. Proceedings of AGILE’12, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, pp. 3–23. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29063-3_1

213.

Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)CrossRef

214.

Shokravi, S., Smith, A.J.R., Burvill, C.R.: Industrial environmental performance evaluation: a Markov-based model considering data uncertainty. Environ. Model. Softw. 60, 1–17 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.024CrossRef

215.

da Silva Hack, P., ten Caten, C.S.: Measurement uncertainty: literature review and research trends. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 61(8), 2116–2124 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2012.2193694CrossRef

216.

Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S.: Classifying variability modeling techniques. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(7), 717–739 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.08.001CrossRef

217.

Smith, C.U.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1990)

218.

Thornton, A., Lee, P.: Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53(2), 207–216 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4CrossRef

219.

Thunnissen, D.P.: Uncertainty classification for the design and development of complex systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Predictive Methods Conference, Veros Software (2003). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.128.133

220.

Troya, J., Moreno, N., Bertoa, M.F., Vallecillo, A.: Representing uncertainty in software models: a survey—companion website (2020). http://atenea.lcc.uma.es/projects/UncertaintySurvey.html

221.

Tumeo, M.A.: The meaning of stochasticity, randomness and uncertainty in environmental modeling. In: Stochastic and Statistical Methods in Hydrology and Environmental Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 33–38. Springer, Dordrecht (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1072-3_3

222.

Vanherpen, K., Denil, J., Meulenaere, P.D., Vangheluwe, H.: Design-space exploration in MDE: an initial pattern catalogue. In: Proceedings of CMSEBA@MODELS’14, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1340, pp. 42–51. CEUR-WS.org (2014). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1340/paper6.pdf

223.

Walker, W., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J., van Asselt, M., Janssen, P., Krayer von Krauss, M.: Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr. Assess. 4(1), 5–17 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466

224.

Wang, Y., Li, X., Li, X., Wang, Y.: A survey of queries over uncertain data. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 37(3), 485–530 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-013-0638-6CrossRef

225.

Wang, Y.H., Cao, K., Zhang, X.M.: Complex event processing over distributed probabilistic event streams. Comput. Math. Appl. 66(10), 1808–1821 (2013)CrossRef

226.

Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xii–xxiii (2002)

227.

Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of EASE’14, pp. 38:1–38:10. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

228.

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRef

229.

Wolny, S., Mazak, A., Carpella, C., Geist, V., Wimmer, M.: Thirteen years of SysML: a systematic mapping study. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 111–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00735-yCrossRef

230.

Woltzenlogel Paleo, B.: An expressive probabilistic temporal logic. CoRR arXiv:abs/1603.07453 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07453

231.

Wong, S.K.M., Butz, C.J.: Rough sets for uncertainty reasoning. In: Proceedings of RSCTC’00, LNCS, vol. 2005, pp. 511–518. Springer (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45554-X_63

232.

Wortmann, A., Barais, O., Combemale, B., Wimmer, M.: Modeling languages in industry 4.0: an extended systematic mapping study. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 67–94 (2020)CrossRef

233.

Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy Set Theory—and Its Applications. Springer Science+Business Media, Berlin (2001)CrossRef

234.

Zvieli, A., Chen, P.P.: Entity-relationship modeling and fuzzy databases. In: Proceedings of ICDE’86, pp. 320–327. IEEE Computer Society (1986). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.1986.7266236

Titel: Uncertainty representation in software models: a survey
verfasst von: Javier Troya
Nathalie Moreno
Manuel F. Bertoa
Antonio Vallecillo
Publikationsdatum: 08.01.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-020-00842-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

Foundations of information technology based on Bunge’s systemist philosophy of reality

Using recommender systems to improve proactive modeling

A formal approach to finding inconsistencies in a metamodel

A survey on the design space of end-user-oriented languages for specifying robotic missions

Virtual network embedding: ensuring correctness and optimality by construction using model transformation and integer linear programming techniques

A technique for evaluating and improving the semantic transparency of modeling language notations

Premium Partner