skip to main content
10.1145/3344948.3344970acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecsaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Architecture trace diagrams for cyber-physical systems

Published:09 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Developing a suitable architecture for Cyber-Physical Systems requires architects to consider all necessary areas - software, hardware, networking - and have an understanding of how information is passed between the different components. Errors in some part might be caused by problems in another, thus a deeper understanding of the information flow is necessary to identify possible error sources. We present how Architecture Trace Diagrams (ATDs) can be used to model the architecture and information flow of Cyber-Physical Systems. In a study with several developers, we show that participants using ATDs achieved better results in terms of correctness, speed, and participant self-efficacy in comparison to UML diagrams.

References

  1. Syed Hassan Ahmed, Gwanghyeon Kim, and Dongkyun Kim. 2013. Cyber Physical System: Architecture, applications and research challenges. In Wireless Days (WD), 2013 IFIP. IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. A. Barnard. 1945. A New Test for 2×2 Tables. Nature 156 (Aug. 1945), 177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Grady Booch, James Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson. 2005. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide (2 edition ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Matthias Book, Volker Gruhn, and Rüdiger Striemer. 2016. Tamed Agility. Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins. 1995. Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly 19, 2 (June 1995), 189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Davide Falessi, Giovanni Cantone, Rick Kazman, and Philippe Kruchten. 2011. Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43, 4 (2011), 33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. David Garlan, Robert Monroe, and David Wile. 1997. Acme: An Architecture Description Interchange Language. In Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research (CASCON '97). IBM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Imen Graja, Slim Kallel, Nawal Guermouche, and Ahmed Hadj Kacem. 2016. BPMN4CPS: A BPMN Extension for Modeling Cyber-Physical Systems. In 2016 IEEE 25th International Conference on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE). 152--157. 2016.41Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Volker Gruhn, Stefan Gries, Marc Hesenius, Julius Ollesch, Shafiq ur Rehman, Nils Schwenzfeier, Christian Wahl, and Florian Wessling. 2017. Engineering Cyber-Physical Systems. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 297: New Trends in Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (2017), 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Erik Hebisch, Matthias Book, and Volker Gruhn. 2015. Scenario-based Architect-ing with Architecture Trace Diagrams. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture (TwinPeaks '15). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 16--19. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2821481.2821488 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Thomas A. Henzinger and Joseph Sifakis. 2006. The Embedded Systems Design Challenge. In FM 2006: Formal Methods, Jayadev Misra, Tobias Nipkow, and Emil Sekerinski (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Christine Hofmeister, Philippe Kruchten, Robert L Nord, Henk Obbink, Alexander Ran, and Pierre America. 2007. A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 1 (2007), 106--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Rick Kazman, Len Bass, and Mark Klein. 2006. The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 79, 8 (2006), 1207--1216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. K. Khaitan and J. D. McCalley. 2015. Design Techniques and Applications of Cyberphysical Systems: A Survey. IEEE Systems Journal 9, 2 (June 2015), 350--365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. A. Lee. 2010. CPS foundations. In Design Automation Conference. IEEE, 737--742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Henry Muccini and Mohammad Sharaf. 2017. Caps: Architecture description of situational aware cyber physical systems. In Software Architecture (ICSA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 211--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Akshay Rajhans, Shang-Wen Cheng, Bradley Schmerl, David Garlan, Bruce H. Krogh, Clarence Agbi, and Ajinkya Bhave. 2009. An Architectural Approach to the Design and Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems An Architectural Approach to the Design and Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems. Electronic Communications of the EASST 21: Multi-Paradigm Modeling 2009 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Antony Tang, Aldeida Aleti, Janet Burge, and Hans van Vliet. 2010. What makes software design effective? Design Studies 31, 6 (2010), 614--640.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lihua Xu, Debra J Richardson, and Hadar Ziv. 2007. A survey of software architecture decision-making techniques. Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine, Technical Report UCI-ISR-07-10 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Uwe Zdun, Paris Avgeriou, Carsten Hentrich, and Schahram Dustdar. 2008. Architecting as decision making with patterns and primitives. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Sharing and reusing architectural knowledge. ACM, 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Architecture trace diagrams for cyber-physical systems

      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 Other conferences
        ECSA '19: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Software Architecture - Volume 2
        September 2019
        286 pages
        ISBN:9781450371421
        DOI:10.1145/3344948

        Copyright © 2019 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: 9 September 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ECSA '19 Paper Acceptance Rate48of72submissions,67%Overall Acceptance Rate48of72submissions,67%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader