Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dependability Domain Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Model-Driven Dependability Assessment of Software Systems

  • 772 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces a domain model for the dependability. The model describes core concepts of dependability while provides a vocabulary for it. The domain model bridges the gap between dependability concepts, introduced in Chap. 2, and the dependability profile, described in Chap. 5 The domain model defines information needed to create modeling constructs for dependability-specific modeling languages.

Let’s specify the dependability concepts with a model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AADL (2006) The Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL): An Introduction. Technical Note CMU/SEI-2006-TN-011

    Google Scholar 

  • AADL (2009) Architecture Analysis & Design Language. SAE International

    Google Scholar 

  • AADL-EM (2006) SAE-AS5506/1 Architecture Analysis and Design Language Annex (AADL): Vol 1, annex E:Error Model. International Society of Automotive Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  • Addouche N, Antoine C, Montmain J (2004) UML models for dependability analysis of real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol 6. IEEE Computer Society, Silver Spring, pp 5209–5214

    Google Scholar 

  • Addouche N, Antoine C, Montmain J (2006) Methodology for UML modeling and formal verification of real-time systems. In: International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling Control and Automation (CIMCA 2006), International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (IAWTIC 2006). IEEE Computer Society, Silver Spring, p 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajmone MM, Chiola G (1987) On Petri nets with deterministic and exponentially distributed firing times. In: Advances in Petri nets 1987, covers the 7th European workshop on applications and theory of Petri nets. Springer, London, pp 132–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajmone-Marsan M, Balbo G, Conte G, Donatelli S, Franceschinis G (1994) Modeling with generalized stochastic Petri nets. Wiley series in parallel computing. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby K, Kelly T (2001) Deriving safety requirements using scenarios. In: 5th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 228–235

    Google Scholar 

  • ANSI/IEEE (1991) Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. Technical Report STD-729-1991, ANSI/IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  • ANSI/IEEE-STD-352 (1987) IEEE guide for general principles of reliability analysis of nuclear power generating station safety systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold T (1973) The concept of coverage and its effect on the reliability model of a repairable system. IEEE Trans Comp 22:251–254. doi: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/T-C.1973.223703

  • ARP-4754 (1994) Certification considerations for highly-integrated or complex aircraft systems. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale

    Google Scholar 

  • ARP-4761 (1995) Guidelines and methods for conducting the safety assessment of civil airbone systems and equipment. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale

    Google Scholar 

  • AUTOSAR (2011) AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture. Version 3.0. www.autosar.org. Accessed 30 Sept 2010

  • Avižienis A (1967) Design of fault-tolerant computers. In: Proceedings of the fall joint computer conference, AFIPS ’67 (Fall). ACM, New York, pp 733–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Avizienis A (1985) The N-version approach to fault-tolerant software. IEEE Trans Software Eng 11(12):1491–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avizienis A, Laprie JC, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 1(1):11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baarir S, Beccuti M, Cerotti D, DePierro M, Donatelli S, Franceschinis G (2009) The GreatSPN tool: recent enhancements. SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 36(4):4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo S, Di Marco A, Inverardi P, Simeoni M (2004) Model-based performance prediction in software development: A survey. IEEE Trans Software Eng 30(5):295–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béounes C, Kanoun K, Aguera M, Laprie JC, Arlat J, Metge S, Bachmann S, de Souza JM, Bourdeau C, Powell D, Doucet JE, Spiesser P (1993) SURF-2: a program for dependability evaluation of complex hardware and software systems. In: The 23rd annual international symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS-23). IEEE Computer Society, Toulouse, pp 668–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Merseguer J (2006) QoS assessment via stochastic analysis. IEEE Internet Comput 10(3): 32–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Donatelli S, Horváth A (2001) Special section on the pratical use of high-level Petri Nets: implementing compositionality for stochastic Petri nets. Int J Software Tool Tech Tran (STTT) 3(4):417–430

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Donatelli S, Dondossola G (2002) Methodology for the generation of the modeling scenarios starting from the requisite specifications and its application to the collected requirements, IST Project 25434 DepAuDE - Deliverable D1.3b, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Donatelli S, Dondossola G (2004a) A class diagram framework for collecting dependability requirements in automation systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods (ISOLA’04), Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Paphos (Cyprus)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Donatelli S, Dondossola G (2004b) Towards a methodological approach to specification and analysis of dependable automation systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on formal modelling and analysis of timed systems (FORMATS) and on formal techniques in real-time and fault tolerant system (FTRTFT). Springer, Grenoble (France), pp 36–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Campos J, Merseguer J (2011a) Timing-failure risk assessment of UML design using Time Petri Net bound techniques. IEEE Trans Ind Informat 7(1):90–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Flammini F, Marrone S, Merseguer J, Papa C, Vittorini V (2011b) Model-driven availability evaluation of railway control systems. In: 30th international conference, SAFECOMP11, Naples. LNCS, vol 6894. Springer, pp 15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Merseguer J, Petriu D (2011c) A dependability profile within MARTE. Software Syst Model 10(3):313–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Merseguer J, Petriu D (2012) Dependability modeling and analysis of software systems specified with UML. ACM Comput Surv 45(1):2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi S, Flammini F, Marrone S, Mazzocca N, Merseguer J, Nardone R, Vittorini V (2013) Enabling the usage of UML in the verification of railway systems: the DAM-rail approach. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.032

  • Berthomieu B, Diaz M (1991) Modeling and verification of time dependent systems using time Petri nets. IEEE Trans Software Eng 12(3):259–273

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Biba KJ (1977) Integrity considerations for secure computer systems. Tech Rep MTR-3153, Mitre Corporation, Bedford MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Billinton R, Allan RN (1992) Reliability evaluation of engineering systems: concepts and techniques. Plenum, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio A, Ciancamerla E, Franceschinis G, Gaeta R, Minichino M, Portinale L (2003) Sequential application of heterogeneous models for the safety analysis of a control system: a case study. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocciarelli P, D’Ambrogio A (2011a) A BPMN extension for modeling non functional properties of business processes. In: Wainer GA, Traoré MK, Heckel R, Himmelspach J (eds) Proceedings of the 2011 symposium on theory of modeling & simulation: DEVS integrative M&S symposium (TMS-DEVS) held within the spring simulation multi-conference, SpringSim ’11, vol 4. SCS/ACM, Boston, pp 160–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocciarelli P, D’Ambrogio A (2011b) A model-driven method for describing and predicting the reliability of composite services. Software Syst Model 10(2):265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B (1984) Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Software 1:75–88, doi: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MS.1984.233702

  • Bondavalli A, Dal Cin M, Latella D, Majzik I, Pataricza A, Savoia G (2001a) Dependability analysis in the early phases of UML-based system design. Int J Comput Syst Sci Eng 16(5):265–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondavalli A, Chiaradonna S, Di Giandomenico F, Mura I (2004) Dependability modeling and evaluation of multiple-phased systems using DEEM. IEEE Trans Reliab 53(4):509–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondavalli A, et al. (2001b) Dependability analysis in the early phases of UML-based system design. Int J Comput Syst Sci Eng 16(5):265–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozzano M, Cimatti A, Katoen JP, Nguyen VY, Noll T, Roveri M (2011) Safety, dependability and performance analysis of extended AADL models. Comput J 54(5):754–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BPEL (2007) Web Services Business Process Execution Language. Version 2.0

    Google Scholar 

  • BPMN (2011) Business Process Modeling Notation. Version 2.0 - OMG Standard document formal/2011-01-03

    Google Scholar 

  • BS-5760-5 (1991) Reliability of systems, equipment and components. Guide to failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMEA and FMECA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos J, Silva M (1992) Structural techniques and performance bounds of stochastic Petri net models. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 609. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 352–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Cancila D, Terrier F, Belmonte F, Dubois H, Espinoza H, Gérard S, Cuccuru A (2009) Sophia: a modeling language for model-based safety engineering. In: Van Baelen S, Weigert T, Ober I, Espinoza H (eds) 2nd international workshop on model based architecting and construction of embedded systems, CEUR. Denver, Colorado, pp 11–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao H, Yan T, Pereira LR, Das SR, Lewis B (2006) Use AADL to analyze and design embedded systems. www.embedded.com. Accessed 19 Aug 2007

  • Chillarege R, Bhandari IS, Chaar JK, Halliday MJ, Moebus DS, Ray BK, Wong MY (1992) Orthogonal defect classification-a concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18:943–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiola G, Dutheillet C, Franceschinis G, Haddad S (1993) Stochastic well-formed colored nets and symmetric modeling applications. IEEE Trans Comput 42(11):1343–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Kulkarni VG, Trivedi KS (1994) Markov regenerative stochastic Petri nets. Perform Eval 20:337–357

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Clark DD, Wilson DR (1987) A comparison of commercial and military computer security policies. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on security and privacy. IEEE CS, Oakland, California, pp 184–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark G, Courtney T, Daly D, Deavours D, Derisavi S, Doyle JM, Sanders WH, Webster P (2001) The Möbius modeling tool. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on Petri nets and performance models, pp 241 –250

    Google Scholar 

  • Contini S, Scheer S, Wilikens M, DeCola G, Cojazzi G (1999) ASTRA, an integrated tool set for complex systems dependability studies. Tech. rep., European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) – JRC n. 18415, jRC n. 18415

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortellessa V, Grassi V (2007) A modeling approach to analyze the impact of error propagation on reliability of component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on component-based software engineering, CBSE’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 140–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortellessa V, Mirandola R (2000) Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on software and performance (WOSP2000). ACM, Ottawa, pp 58–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortellessa V, Pompei A (2004) Towards a UML Profile for QoS: a contribution in the reliability domain. In: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on software and performance (WOSP’04). Redwood Shores, California, pp 197–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox D, Miller H (1965) The theory of stochastic processes. Chapman and Hall, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Csertan G, Huszerl G, Majzik I, Pap Z, Pataricza A, Varro D (2002) VIATRA – VIsual Automated TRAnsformations for formal verification and validation of UML models. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 267–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Dal Cin M (2003) Extending UML towards a useful OO-language for modeling dependability features. In: Proceedings of 9th IEEE international workshop on object-oriented real-time dependable systems (WORDS 2003 Fall). IEEE Computer Society, Anacapri (Capri Island), Italy, pp 325–330

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrogio A, Iazeolla G, Mirandola R (2002) A method for the prediction of software reliability. In: Proceedings of the 6-th IASTED software engineering and applications conference (SEA2002), Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • David P, Idasiak V, Kratz F (2009) Improving reliability studies with SysML. In: RAMS09: Proceedings of the reliability and maintainability symposium. IEEE Computer Society, Fort Worth, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMiguel M, Lambolais T, Piekarec S, Betgé-Brezetz S, Péquery J (2001) Automatic generation of simulation models for the evaluation of performance and reliability of architectures specified in UML. In: EDO’00: revised papers from the second international workshop on engineering distributed objects. Springer, London, pp 83–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning P, Buzen J (1978) The operational analysis of queueing network models. ACM Comput Surv 10(3):225–261

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Devanbu PT, Stubblebine S (2000) Software engineering for security: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, ICSE’00. ACM, New York, pp 227–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Donatelli S, Franceschinis G (1996) The PSR methodology: integrating hardware and software models. In: Billington J, Reisig W (eds) Application and theory of Petri nets. LNCS, vol 1091. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan JB, Trivedi KS, Geist R, Nicola VF (1985) Extended stochastic petri nets: applications and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on computer performance modelling, measurement and evaluation, Performance ’84. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 507–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan JB, Bavuso SJ, Boyd MA (1992) Dynamic fault-tree models for fault tolerant computer systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 41(3):363–373

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan JB, Venkataraman B, Gulati R (1997) DIFtree: a software package for the analysis of dynamic fault tree models. In: Proceedings of the 1997 reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 64–70

    Google Scholar 

  • EAST-ADL2 (2010) EAST-ADL Profile Specification. The ATESST2 Consortium: deliverable D4.1.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans M, Hastings N, Peacock B (2000) Statistical distributions. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Genero M, Piattini M, Manso E, Cantone G (2003) Building UML class diagram maintainability prediction models based on early metrics. In: METRICS ’03: Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on software metrics. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 263

    Google Scholar 

  • Genero M, Manso E, Visaggio A, Canofra G, Piattini M (2007) Building measure-based prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability. Empir Software Eng 12:517–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gharbi N, Dutheillet C (2011) An algorithmic approach for analysis of finite-source retrial systems with unreliable servers. Comput Math Appl 62(6):2535–2546

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ghezzi C, Mandrioli D, Morzenti A (1990) Trio: a logic language for executable specifications of real-time systems. J Syst Software 12(2):107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goseva-Popstojanova K, Trivedi KS (2000) Stochastic modeling formalisms for dependability, performance and performability. In: Haring G, Lindemann C, Reiser M (eds) Performance evaluation: origins and directions, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1769. Springer, Berlin, pp 403–422

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goseva-Popstojanova K, Hassan AE, Guedem A, Abdelmoez W, Nassar DEM, Ammar HH, Mili A (2003) Architectural-level risk analysis using UML. IEEE Trans Software Eng 29(10):946–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graaf B, van Deursen A (2007) Visualisation of domain-specific modelling languages using UML. In: 14th annual IEEE international conference and workshop on engineering of computer based systems (ECBS 2007), 26–29 March 2007, IEEE Computer Society, Tucson, Arizona, pp 586–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassi V, Mirandola R, Sabetta A (2005) From design to analysis models: a kernel language for performance and reliability analysis of component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on software and performance (WOSP’05). Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, pp 25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassi V, Mirandola R, Sabetta A (2007) Filling the gap between design and performance/reliability models of component-based systems: A model-driven approach. J Syst Software 80(4):528–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GreatSPN (2002) University of Torino. http://www.di.unito.it/_greatspn. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • Hansen K, Wells L, Maier T (2004) HAZOP analysis of UML-based software architecture description of safety-critical systems. In: Koskimies K, Kuzniarz L, Lilius J, Porres I (eds) Second Nordic workshop on UML, modeling, methods and tools, TUCS. Turku, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel D (1987) Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program 8(3):231–274

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan A, Goseva-Popstojanova K, Ammar H (2005) UML based severity analysis methodology. In: Proceedings of annual reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS 2005), Alexandria, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverkort BR, Marie R, Rubino G, Trivedi K (2001) Performability modelling. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkings R, Toyn I, Bate I (2003) An approach to designing safety critical systems using the unified modelling language. In: Workshop on critical systems development with UML, San Francisco, pp 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • HAZOP (2000) HAZOP studies on systems containing programmable electronics. UK Ministry of Defence, Glasgow (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosford J (1960) Measures of dependability. Oper Res 8(1):204–206

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y, Kindala C (1996) Software fault tolerance in the application layer. In: Lyu MR (ed) Software fault tolerance. Wiley, New York, Chap 10, pp 231–248

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA-478 (1988) Component reliability data for use in probabilistic safety assessement. Technical document issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM (2012) Rational rose modeler. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • IEC-60300-3-1 (2003) Dependability Management. Part 3: Application Guide, Section 1: Analysis Techniques for dependability: Guide on methodology

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-60300-3-15 (2009) Dependability Management. Part 3–15: Guidance to engineering of system dependability

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-60812 (1985) Analysis techniques for system reliability - Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61025 (2006) Fault tree analysis (FTA)

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61078 (2006) Analysis techniques for dependability – Reliability block diagram and boolean methods

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61131-1 (1992) Programmable controllers, part 3: Programming languages. International Electro-technical Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61165 (2006) Application of Markov techniques

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61508 (1998) Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. International Electro-technical Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-61882 (2001) Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) – Application guide

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-62061 (2005) Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC-62502 (2010) Analysis techniques for dependability – Event tree analysis (ETA). Ed1.0

    Google Scholar 

  • Isograph (2012) FaultTree+ software package. URL http://www.isograph-software.com. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • ISO/IEC 14764 (2006) Standard for software engineering – software life cycle processes - maintenance. International organization for standardization/International electro-technical commission

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC-15909-1 (2004) Systems and software engineering – High-level Petri nets. Part 1: Concepts, definitions and graphical notation

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC-9126-1 (2001) Software engineering – Product quality. Part 1: Quality Model

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC9126-1.2 (2001) Information technology – software product quality. Part 1: quality model. International Electro-technical Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU-TS (1995) ITU-TS Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Charts (MSC). International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwu F, Galloway A, McDermid J, Toyn I (2007) Integrating safety and formal analyses using UML and PFS. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(2):156–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J\(\mathrm{\ddot{u}}\) rjens J, Wagner S (2005) Component-based development of dependable systems with UML. In: Atkinson C, Bunse C, Gross HG, Peper C (eds) Component-based software development for embedded systems. LNCS, vol 3778. Springer, Berlin, pp 320–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen P, Grante C, Alminger A, Eklund U, Torin J (2001) Hazard analysis in object-oriented design of dependable systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN01). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 507–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BW (1989) Design and analysis of fault-tolerant digital systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jouault F, Kurtev I (2006) Transforming models with ATL. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on satellite events at the MoDELS, MoDELS’05. Springer, Berlin, pp 128–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürjens J (2003) Developing safety-critical systems with UML. In: Proceedings of UML 2003. LNCS, vol 2863. Springer, San Francisco, pp 360–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelling C (1996) Conventional and fast simulation techniques for stochastic Petri nets. Bericht (Technische Universität Berlin. Fachbereich 20, Informatik), Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich 13, Informatik

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni VG (1995) Modeling and analysis of stochastic systems. Chapman & Hall, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde F, Espinoza H, Terrier F, Gérard S (2007) Improving UML profile design practices by leveraging conceptual domain models. In: Stirewalt REK, Egyed A, Fischer B (eds) 22nd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2007). ACM, Atlanta (USA), pp 445–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamport L, Shostak R, Pease M (1982) The byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 4:382–401

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Leangsuksun C, Shen L, Liu T, Song H, Scott SL (2003) Availability prediction and modeling of high availability OSCAR cluster. In: IEEE international conference on cluster computing. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 380

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N, Stolzy J (1987) Safety analysis using Petri nets. IEEE Trans Software Eng 13(3): 386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson NG (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann C (1998) Performance modelling with deterministic and stochastic Petri nets. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Littlewood B, Strigini L (1993) Validation of ultrahigh dependability for software-based systems. Commun ACM 36:69–80, doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/163359.163373

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dehlinger J, Lutz RR (2007) Safety analysis of software product lines using state-based modeling. J Syst Software 80(11):1879–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu S, Halang WA (2007) A UML profile to model safety-critical embedded real-time control systems. In: Krämer BJ, Halang WA (eds) Contributions to ubiquitous computing, studies in computational intelligence, vol 42. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lyu M (1995) Software fault tolerance. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyu MR (ed) (1996) Handbook of software reliability engineering. IEEE Computer Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Majzik I, Pataricza A, Bondavalli A (2003) Stochastic dependability analysis of system architecture based on UML models. In: Architecting dependable systems. LNCS, vol 2677. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–244

    Google Scholar 

  • MARTE (2011) UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and analysis of real-time and embedded systems. Version 1.1, OMG document: formal/2011-06-02

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin J, Odell J (1997) Object-oriented methods: a foundation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauri G (2000) Integrating safety analysis techniques, supporting identification of common cause failures. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York

    Google Scholar 

  • Merseguer J (2003) Software performance engineering based on UML and Petri nets. PhD thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  • Merseguer J, Bernardi S (2012) Dependability analysis of DES based on MARTE and UML state machines models. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 22(2):163–178

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J (1980) On evaluating the performability of degradable computing systems. IEEE Trans Comput 29:720–731

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • MIL-STD-1629a (1980) Military standard: procedures for performing a failure mode, effect and criticality analysis

    Google Scholar 

  • MIL-STD-882c (1993) Military standard: system safety program requirements

    Google Scholar 

  • MIL-STD-882d (2000) Military standard: standard practice for system safety

    Google Scholar 

  • MOF (2006) Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. OMG document: formal/2006-01-01

    Google Scholar 

  • Muppala J, Ciardo G, Trivedi K (1993) Modeling using stochastic reward nets. In: Schwetman HD, Walrand JC, Bagchi KK, DeGroot D (eds) MASCOTS ’93, Proceedings of the international workshop on modeling, analysis, and simulation on computer and telecommunication systems, 17–20 January 1993. The Society for Computer Simulation, La Jolla, San Diego, pp 367–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustafiz S, Kienzle J (2009) DREP: a requirements engineering process for dependable reactive systems. In: Butler MJ, Jones CB, Romanovsky A, Troubitsyna E (eds) Methods, models and tools for fault tolerance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5454. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 220–250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mustafiz S, Sun X, Kienzle J, Vangheluwe H (2008) Model-driven assessment of system dependability. Software Syst Model 7(4):487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D, Sanders W, Trivedi K (2004) Model-based evaluation: from dependability to security. IEEE Trans Sependable secur Comput 1(1):48–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Niz D (2007) Diagrams and languages for model-based software engineering of embedded systems:UML and AADL. White Paper, www.sei.cmu.edu/library

  • NPRD11 (2011) Nonelectronic parts reliability data. Reliability Information Analysis Center, Department of Defence (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober I, Graf S, Ober I (2006) Validating timed UML models by simulation and verification. STTT 8(2):128–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OCL (2006) Object constraint language. OMG document: formal/2006-05-01, v2.0

    Google Scholar 

  • OpNet (1999) OpNet modeler. Http://www.opnet.com/solutions/network_rd/modeler.html. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • OSATE (2012) Open Source AADL Tool Environment. International Society of Automotive Engineers. http://www.aadl.info. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • Pai GJ, Dugan J (2002) Automatic synthesis of dynamic fault trees from UML system models. In: Proceedings of 13th international symposium on software reliability engineering (ISSRE-02). IEEE Computer Society, Annapolis, pp 243–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Papoulis A (1965) Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pataricza A (2000) From the general resource model to a general fault modelling paradigm? In: Workshop on critical systems, held within UML’2000. CiteSeer Computer and Information Science Publications, Digital Library

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataricza A, Majzik I, Huszerl G, Várnay G (2003) UML-based design and formal analysis of a safety-critical railway control software module. In: Tarnai G, Schnieder E (eds) Proceedings of symposium formal methods for railway operation and control systems (FORMS03), Budapest (Hungary), pp 125–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell D (1992) Failure mode assumptions and assumption coverage. In: Fault-tolerant computing, 1992. FTCS-22. Twenty-second international symposium on Digest of Papers. IEEE computer society, Boston, pp 386–395

    Google Scholar 

  • QoS&FT (2008) UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerant Characteristics and Mechanisms. V1.1, formal/08-04-05

    Google Scholar 

  • QVT (2011) Query/View/Transformation Specification. OMG document: formal/2011-01-01

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai S, Veeraraghavan M, Trivedi K (1995) A survey on efficient computation of reliability using disjoint products approach. Networks 25(3):147–163

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rauzy A (1993) New algorithms for fault trees analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 5(59):203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues GN, Rosenblum DS, Uchitel S (2005) Reliability prediction in model-driven development. In: Briand LC, Williams C (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems, 8th international conference (MoDELS 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3713. Springer, Montego Bay, Jamaica, pp 339–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • RTCA (1992) Software considerations in airbone systems and equipment certification. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), European Organization for Civil Aviation Electronics (EUROCAE), no.DO-178B/ED-12B

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugina AE, Kanoun K, Kaâniche M (2007) A system dependability modeling framework using AADL and GSPNs. In: de Lemos R et al. (eds) Architecting dependable systems IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4615. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 14–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rugina AE, Kanoun K, Kaâniche M (2008) The ADAPT tool: From AADL architectural models to stochastic Petri nets through model transformation. In: Seventh European dependable computing conference, EDCC-7. IEEE Computer Society, Kaunas, Lithuania, pp 85–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugina AE, Kanoun K, Kaâniche M (2011) Software dependability modeling using AADL. Int J Performability Eng 7(4):313–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumbaugh JE, Blaha MR, Premerlani WJ, Eddy F, Lorensen WE (1991) Object-oriented modeling and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • SAE-ARP-4761 (1996) Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahner R, Trivedi K, Puliafito A (1996) Performance and reliability analysis of computer systems: an example-based approach using the SHARPE Software Package. Kluwer, Boston

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sahner RA, Trivedi KS (1987) Reliability modeling using SHARPE. IEEE Trans Reliab 36(2):186–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sailer R, Zhang X, Jaeger T, van Doorn L (2004) Design and implementation of a tcg-based integrity measurement architecture. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on USENIX security symposium, vol 13, SSYM’04. USENIX Association, Berkeley, pp 223–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders W, Meyer J (2001) Stochastic activity networks: formal definitions and concepts. In: Brinksma E, Hermanns H, Katoen JP (eds) Lectures on formal methods and performance analysis, First EEF/Euro summer school on trends in computer science, Berg en Dal, The Netherlands, 3–7 July 2000, Revised Lectures, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2090, pp 315–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt DC (2006) Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2):25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selic B (2003) The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20(5):19–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selic B (2007) A systematic approach to domain-specific language design using UML. In: Tenth IEEE international symposium on object-oriented real-time distributed computing (ISORC 2007), 7–9 May 2007. IEEE Computer Society, Santorini Island, Greece, pp 2–9

    Google Scholar 

  • de Souza e Silva E, Gail HR (1989) Calculating availability and performability measures of repairable computer systems using randomization. J ACM 36:171–193, doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/58562.59307

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh H, Cortellessa V, Cukic B, Gunel E, Bharadwaj V (2001) A bayesian approach to reliability prediction and assessment of component based systems. In: 12th international symposium on software reliability engineering (ISSRE 2001), Hong Kong, China, 27–30 November 2001. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 12–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C, Lloyd G (2003) Software performance engineering. In: Lavagno L, Martin G, Selic B (eds) UML for real: design of embedded real-time systems. Kluwer, New York, pp 343–365

    Google Scholar 

  • SoaML (2012) Service oriented architecture modeling language. Version 1.0.1 - OMG Standard document formal/2012-05-10

    Google Scholar 

  • SPT (2005) UML Profile for schedulabibity, performance and time specification. Version 1.1, formal/05-01-02

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapelberg RF (2008) Handbook of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety engineering design. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterbenz JPG, Hutchison D, Çetinkaya EK, Jabbar A, Rohrer JP, Schöller M, Smith P (2010) Resilience and survivability in communication networks: strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines. Comput Network 54(8):1245–1265

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan KJ, Dugan JB, Coppit D (1999) The Galileo fault tree analysis tool. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual international symposium on fault-tolerant computing. IEEE Computer Society, Madison, pp 232–235

    Google Scholar 

  • SysML (2012) System Modeling Language. Version 1.3, OMG document formal/2012-06-01

    Google Scholar 

  • TCG (2011) Http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • TPC-W (2000) Tpc-w. Http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/. Accessed 6 Sept 2013

  • Trivedi K (2001) Probability and statistics with reliability, queuing, and computer science applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi KS (2002) SHARPE 2002: Symbolic hierarchical automated reliability and performance evaluator. In: Proceedings of the 2002 international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN 2002). IEEE Computer Society, Bethesda, p 544

    Google Scholar 

  • UML-EDOC (2001) UML profile for enterprise distributed object computing. Version 1.0

    Google Scholar 

  • UML2 (2011) Unified modeling language: superstructure. Version 2.4.1, OMG document: formal/2011-08-05

    Google Scholar 

  • Vita L, Scarpa M, Puliafito A (1995) Concurrent generalized petri nets. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on the numerical solution of Markov chain. Kluwer, Railey, North Carolina, pp 359–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyuker EJ (1982) On testing non-testable programs. Comput J 25(4):465–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yacoub SM, Cukic B, Ammar HH (2004) A scenario-based reliability analysis approach for component-based software. IEEE Trans Reliab 53(4):465–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zang X, Sun H, Trivedi KS (1999) A BDD-based algorithm for reliability evaluation of phased mission system. IEEE Trans Reliab 48(1):50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarras A, Vassiliadis P, Issarny V (2004) Model-driven dependability analysis of web services. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, OTM confederated international conferences, Agia Napa, Cyprus, 25–29 October 2004, Proceedings, Part II. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3291. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1608–1625

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A (2012) Modeling and evaluation of stochastic Petri nets with TimeNET 4.1. In: 6th international ICST conference on performance evaluation methodologies and tools, Cargese, Corsica, France, 9–12 October 2012. IEEE, New York, pp 54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoughbi G, Briand L, Labiche Y (2006) A UML profile for developing airworthiness-compliant (RTCA DO-178B) safety-critical software. Tech. rep., Carleton University, Canada, tech.rep.SCE-05-19

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoughbi G, Briand L, Labiche Y (2007) A UML profile for developing airworthiness-compliant (RTCA DO-178B), safety-critical software. In: Engels G (ed) Proceedings of models 2007. LNCS, vol 4735. Springer, Berlin, pp 574–588

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academia General Militar, Centro Universitario de la Defensa, Zaragoza, Spain

    Simona Bernardi

  2. Departamento de Informática, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    José Merseguer

  3. Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Dorina Corina Petriu

Authors
  1. Simona Bernardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Merseguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorina Corina Petriu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C. (2013). Dependability Domain Model. In: Model-Driven Dependability Assessment of Software Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39512-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39512-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39511-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39512-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation