skip to main content
10.1145/1071021.1071044acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

How far are we from the definition of a common software performance ontology?

Published:12 July 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

The recent approaches to software performance modeling and validation share the idea of annotating software models with information related to performance (e.g. operational profile) and transforming the annotated model into a performance model (e.g. a Stochastic Petri Net). Up to date, no standard has been defined to represent the information related to performance in software artifacts, although clear advantages in tool interoperability and model transformations would stem from it. This paper is aimed at questioning whether a software performance ontology (i.e. a standard set of concepts and relations) is achievable or not. We consider three meta-models defined for software performance, that are the Schedulability, Performance and Time profile of UML, the Core Scenario Model and the Software Performance Engineering meta-model. We devise two approaches to the creation of an ontology: (i) bottom-up, that extracts common knowledge from the meta-models, (ii) top-down, that is driven from a set of requirements.

References

  1. S. Balsamo, A. Di Marco, P. Inverardi, M. Simeoni, Model-based Performance Prediction in Software Development: A Survey, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.30 (2004), no.5, pp. 295--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. V. Cortellessa, R. Mirandola, PRIMA-UML: a Performance Validation Incremental Methodology on Early UML Diagrams, Science of Computer Programming, Elsevier Science, vol.44 (2002), no.1, pp. 101--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. G. Franks, A. Hubbard, S. Majumdar, D. Petriu, J. Rolia, M. Woodside, A toolset for performance engineering and software design of client-server systems, Performance Evaluation, 24(1-2):117--135, (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. G. Haring, C. Juiz, C. Kurz, R. Puigjaner, J. Zottl, Framework for the Performance Assessment of Architectural Options on Intelligent Distributed Applications, Proc. of Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop, (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. H. Harreld, NASA Delays Satellite Launch After Finding Bugs in Software Program, Federal Computer Week, (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. P. Lopez-Grao, J. Merseguer, J. Campos, From UML Activity Diagrams to Stochastic Petri Nets: Application to Software Performance Engineering, ACM Proc. of Workshop on Software and Performance (2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. B. Petriu, M. Woodside, Software Performance Models from System Scenarios in Use Case Maps, Proceedings of International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Performance Evaluation, LNCS 2324, pp. 141--158, (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. B. Petriu, M. Woodside, A Metamodel for Generating Performance Models from UML Designs, Proc. of UML Conference, LNCS 3273, pp. 41--53, (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. C. Petriu, H. Shen, Applying UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications, Proc. of International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Performance Evaluation, LNCS 2324, pp. 159--177 (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. A. Rolia, K. C. Sevcik, The method of layers, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 21(8):689--700, (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Addison-Wesley, (1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. U. Smith, C. Llado, Performance Model Interchange Format (PMIF 2.0): XML definition and implementation, Proc. of International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, (2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. U. Smith, L. G. Williams, A Performance Model Interchange Format, Journal of Systems and Software, 49, 1, (1999). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. U. Smith, L. G. Williams, Software Performance AntiPatterns, ACM Proc. of Workshop on Software and Performance (2000). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. U. Smith, L. G. Williams, Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software, Addison-Wesley, (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. H. L. Truong, T. Fahringer, Performance Analysis, Data Sharing and Tools Integration in Grids: New Approach based on Ontology, Proc. of International Conference on Computational Science, LNCS 3038, (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. L. G. Williams, C. U. Smith, Information Requirements for Software Performance Engineering, Proc. of International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Performance Evaluation, LNCS 977, pp. 86--101, (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Webster's Third New International Dictionary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Meta-Object Facility, OMG Final Adopted Specification, ptc/03-10-04 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. UML Profile for QoS and Fault Tolerance, OMG Final Adopted Specification, ptc/04-09-01 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations, OMG Document, ad/04-04-01 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time, OMG Full Specification, formal/03-09-01 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. ACM Proceedings of Workshop on Software and Performance (1998-2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. www.perfeng.com/index.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. www.sce.carleton.ca/rads/puma/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. How far are we from the definition of a common software performance ontology?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WOSP '05: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on Software and performance
        July 2005
        261 pages
        ISBN:1595930876
        DOI:10.1145/1071021

        Copyright © 2005 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 12 July 2005

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate149of241submissions,62%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader