The Jazz Reporting Service is a new capability of Rational Reporting for Development Intelligence that provides agile cross-project out of the box reports for software lifecycle management. The service is easy to set up and provides integration with the CLM dashboards through the widget catalog.
ibm rational software architect 8.5 133
With Rational Software Architect Design Manager, you can architect and design software in an iterative and collaborative way -- tightly integrated within your software development lifecycle.
When you must demonstrate compliance with a complex and dynamic set of regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SoX) and ISO 26262, use our experience to effectively and efficiently maintain a compliant software development environment.
Standardized by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 1997, the Unified Modeling Language (UML)Footnote 1 has emerged and established itself as both a de facto and a de jure standard in industrial development of software systems [33]. This was due in part to its versatility, which enables its use as general-purpose language, and also to its ability to be customized through its profiling mechanisms [1] to directly support concepts specific to individual domains, organizations, or projects.
The various developments grouped under the common heading of Model-Driven Engineering (MDE)Footnote 5 were conceived with this goal in mind. At the core of MDE is the notion that models should serve as primary artifacts in software development, as opposed to being merely optional support facilities for analysis and documentation. Abstracting away unneeded (often target-related) details, models can tame complexity and allow developers to better focus on the key design concerns of their applications [44]. In other words, models allow developers (i.e., not necessarily experts in programming) to define complex functions in a more human-centric way than if using traditional programming languages.
More specifically, the portion represents a lamppost system in terms of its software functionalities, physical devices and allocations. In terms of UML, LampPost_ Functional represents the root software composite component, which contains six software components. Connections between software functionalities are achieved through connectors via ports. Behavioral descriptions of the software components are defined in terms of UML state machines, for defining the overall behavior by means of states and transitions, and Alf, for specifying fine-grained actions. The state machine diagram describing the behavior of the type ManagerR is shown in the upper right corner of Fig. 2.
1. Initial search In this stage, we performed automatic searches on electronic databases and indexing systems [27]. As suggested in [27], to cover as much potentially relevant literature as possible, we chose four of the largest and most complete scientific databases and indexing systems in software engineering: IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science.
Required UML diagrams This parameter represents the non-empty set of UML diagrams required by the analyzed solution to be used when modeling a software system (Fig. 9a). Class (48/82), state machine (36/82), and activity (33/82) diagrams represent the most commonly required model representations, often in combination. Overall, the expected trend is that both structural and behavioral models are used when defining executable models.
Software platform This Boolean parameter specifies whether the generated executable is meant to run on a specific software platform (e.g., OS, user-defined middleware, runtime libraries). The landscape of solutions is balanced with respect to this parameter (see Fig. 12b).
The Technology Readiness Level (TRLFootnote 18) is proposed as a systematic metric/measurement system for assessing the maturity of a particular technology, and is defined as an integer n where \(1 \le n \le 9\). Consequently, the readiness level of an analyzed solution and can be one of: \( LOW \) if \(n \le 4\) (i.e., if the solution was either formulated, validated or demonstrated at most in lab), \( MEDIUM \) if \(5 \le n \le 6\) (i.e., if the solution was either validated or demonstrated in the relevant environment), and \( HIGH \) if \(n \ge 7\) (i.e., if the solution was either completed, demonstrated, or proven in operational environment). We assigned a TRL value depending on how the solution was validated. It is important to note that the TRL parameter refers to the whole proposed solution (e.g., the realization of the whole tool chain, if available) and on how it has been evaluated (e.g., its feasibility has been tested via a simple example, or it has been validated in an operational environment).
Finally, we can notice that recent technological trends are reflected in the types of systems, such as mobile robotic systems (7/63) and mobile apps (3/63). This shows that UML can be successfully used for modeling and executing modern software systems.
There appears to be an interesting correlation between intended benefits and publication year of the analyzed primary studies. In fact, the majority of the solutions aiming at improving functional correctness of the modeled system through execution were published after the first formalization of fUML (2011). This seems to confirm the hypothesis by which fUML has provided UML with the means for modeling software systems with precise execution semantics, whose correctness can be automatically assessed.
Slightly more than half of the translational approaches (29/56) sought to reduce the effort needed for producing an executable artifact. On the other hand, the majority of interpretive solutions (12/14) focused on improving the functional correctness of the modeled software system. This supports the view that translation of models to programming languages is preferred when generating production artifacts, whereas interpretation is mostly used for validating and improving functional correctness earlier in the development cycle.
Throughout the entire history of engineering, models have been used as primary tools in support of both analysis and design activities. In analysis, they help designers to develop the necessary understanding of the problem and, more generally, the problem domain. In that context, an executable model can help validate the accuracy of that understanding by demonstrating that the behavior of the executing model matches reality. For design, on the other hand, an executable model serves to determine the degree of adequacy of a proposed design approach. Because design space of complex software systems can often be very large (potentially infinite), for system architects it would be particularly useful if executable models were available very early in the design process, when most key design decisions are being made. Effective design space exploration requires the ability to rapidly and easily evaluate multiple design alternatives including the ability to quickly identify and discard ones that are not promising, thereby freeing up time and resources for greater focus on those that are. This, in turn, implies a very lightweight modeling process at high levels of abstraction. Such an approach not only allows a greater number of alternatives to be considered and evaluated within a given time interval, but it also reduces the effort invested in model construction. The latter is important because, from a psychological viewpoint, it is much easier to discard unpromising alternatives that did not require much effort to produce and evaluate than ones that demanded significant time and effort.
With software being used increasingly to control various physical processes (so-called cyber-physical systems [32]), the ability to readily and correctly integrate and synchronize the execution of UML model simulators into complex multi-paradigm (e.g., hybrid) simulation frameworks, involving components that simulate different kinds of components has become crucial. And, in line with the previously noted gradual elimination of the boundary between design time and deployment time execution, an enhanced ability to combine UML simulators and/or execution systems with actual running systems is paramount.
To summarize, we see that there is a critical need to research and develop new and efficient methods for observing and controlling the execution of software systems developed using MDE principles, including those based on executable UML.
Principal researcher Dr. Federico Ciccozzi, senior researcher with expertise in model-driven engineering and component-based software engineering for the development of complex systems based on domain-specific modeling languages, both UML and EMF based. This team member specializes in: definition of DSMLs (including UML profiles), automatic model manipulations through transformations for code generation, analysis, model optimization, system properties preservation (just to mention a few); he was involved in all the activities, i.e., planning the study, conducting it, and reporting.
Research methodologist Dr. Ivano Malavolta, senior researcher with expertise in empirical methods applied to software systems and systematic literature reviews; he was mainly involved in (i) the planning phase of the study, and (ii) supporting the principal researcher during the whole study, e.g., by reviewing the data extraction form, the selected primary studies, the extracted data, the produced reports. 2ff7e9595c
Comments