MOSES: MOdeling Software and platform architEcture in UML 2 for Simulation-based performance analysis

1. ARTISAN Sofware - ARTISAN Studio, http://www.artisansw.com

2. IBM Rational Rose Real Time, http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/

3. Telelogic TAU G2, http://www.telelogic.com

4. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG document formal/05-07-04, Object Management Group, Inc. (2005), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04

5. UML profile for schedulability, performance, and time specification. formal/03-09-01, omg adopted specification, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/schedulability.htm

6. Arief, L.B., Speirs, N.A.: A UML tool for an automatic generation of simulation programs. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2000), Ottawa, Canada, pp. 71–76. ACM, New York (2000)

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Balsamo, S., Marzolla, M.: A simulation-based approach to software performance modeling. In: Proc. of European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (2003)

   Google Scholar 

9. Cortellessa, V., Gentile, M.: Performance modeling and validation of a software system in a RT-UML-based simulative environment. In: International Symposium on Object-oriented Real-time distributed Computing, pp. 52–59 (2004)

   Google Scholar 

10. Cortellessa, V., Pierini, P., Rossi, D.: On the adequacy of UML-RTfor performance validation of an sdh telecommunication system. In: ISORC, pp. 121–124. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)

    Google Scholar 

11. Cortellessa, V., Pierini, P., Rossi, D.: Integrating software models and platform models for performance analysis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(6), 385–401 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. de Wet, N., Kritzinger, P.: Using UML models for the performance analysis of network systems. Comput. Networks 49(5), 627–642 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Isabel, D., Volker, S., Falko, D., Reinhard, G.: SYNTONY: Network Protocol Simulation based on Standardconform UML 2 Models. In: 1st ACM International Workshop on Network Simulation Tools (NSTools 2007), Nantes, France. ACM, New York (October 2007)

    Google Scholar 

15. Kabajunga, C., Pooley, R.: Simulating UML sequence diagrams. In: Pooley, R., Thomas, N. (eds.) UK Performance Engineering Workshop (UK PEW), pp. 198–207 (July 1998)

    Google Scholar 

16. Kirshin, A., Dotan, D., Hartman, A.: A UML simulator based on a generic model execution engine. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science - Models in Software Engineering, pp. 324–326 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

17. Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validating timed UML models by simulation and verification. STTT, Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2005 (under press, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

18. Petriu, D., Woodside, M.: An intermediate metamodel with scenarios and resources for generating performance models from uml designs. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 6(22), 163–184 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Koziolek, H., Happe, J., Kuperberg, M., Reussner, R.H., Becker, S., Krogmann, K.: The palladio component model. In: Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Interner Bericht 2007-21 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

20. Rolia, J.A., Sevcik, K.C.: The method of layers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(8), 689–700 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Koziolek, H., Becker, S., Reussner, R.H.: Model-based performance prediction with the palladio component model. In: Proc. Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2007) (February 2007)

    Google Scholar 

22. Sancho, P.P., Juiz, C., Pugjaner, R.: Integrating system performance engineering into MASCOT methodology through discrete-event simulation. In: Núñez, M., Maamar, Z., Pelayo, F.L., Pousttchi, K., Rubio, F. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3236. pp. 278–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

23. Selic, B.: Using UML for modeling complex real-time systems. In: Müller, F., Bestavros, A. (eds.) LCTES 1998. LNCS, vol. 1474, pp. 250–260. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

24. Selic, B.: On software platforms, their modeling with UML 2, and platform-independent design. In: ISORC 2005: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 2005), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 15–21. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

25. Woodside, M., Hrischuk, C., Selic, B., Bayarov, S.: A wideband approach to integrating performance prediction into a software design environment. In: WOSP 1998: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 31–41. ACM, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

26. Woodside, M., Hrishchuk, C., Selic, B., Bayarov, S.: Automated performance modeling of softwaree genrated by a design environment. Perform. Eval. 45(2-3), 107–123 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

27. Yacoub, S., Ibrahim, A., Ammar, H.H., Lateef, K.: Verification of UML dynamic specification using simulation-based timing analysis. In: Proc. of 6th International Conference on Reliability and Quality in Design (ISSAT 2000), pp. 65–69 (August 2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references