Model-driven performance analysis of UML design models based on stochastic process algebra

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3748 LNCS, Issue , 2005, Pages 41-58

  Tabuchi, Naoshi ^a   Sato, Naoto ^a   Nakamura, Hiroaki ^a  

^a IBM RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC TRANSFORMATION; MODEL-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (MDD); MODULAR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; STOCHASTIC PROCESS ALGEBRA;

COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING; STOCHASTIC CONTROL SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 33646531612     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11581741_5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Simona Bernardi et al. From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models. In Proc. 3rd Intl. Workshop on Software and Performance, pages 35-45, 2002.
2. Christie Bolton and Jim Davies. Activity graphs and processes. In Proc. IFM2000, 2000.
3. Ed Brinksma and Holger Hermanns. Process algebra and markov chains. 2002.
4. C. Canevet et al. Performance modelling with UML and stochastic process algebras. In Proc. UK Performance Engineering Workshop, July 2002.
5. C. Canevet et al. Analysing UML 2.0 activity diagrams in the software performance engineering process. In Proc. 4th Intl. Workshop on Soft. and Perf., pages 74-78, 2004.
6. Susanna Donatelli and Giuliana Franceschinis. The PSR methodology: Integrating hardware and software models. In ICATPN'96, pages 133-152. Springer-Verlag, June 1996.
7. Eclipse.org. Eclipse.org homepage. http://www.eclipse.org, 2005.
8. Stephen Gilmore et al. PEPA nets: A structured performance modelling formalism. In Proc. TOOLS 2002, April 2002.
9. Norbert Götz, Ulrich Herzog, and Michael Rettelbach. TIPP-a language for timed processes and performance evaluation. Technical report, University of Frlangen-Nurnherg, 1992.
10. Jane Hillston. A compositional approach to performance modelling. CUP, 1996.
11. D. Kartson, G. Balbo, S. Donatelli, G. Franceschinis, and Giuseppe Conte. Modelling with Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.
12. Juan Pablo López-Grao et al. From UML activity diagrams to stochastic petri nets: application to software performance engineering. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 29(1), 2004.
13. OMG. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time, v1.0, September 2003.
14. OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure specification, October 2004.
15. M. Ribaudo. Stochastic Petri net semantics for stochastic process algebras. In Proc. PNPM95, 1995.
16. Bran Selic. The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development. Software, pages 19-25, 2003.
17. Carla Simone and Marco Ajmone Marsan. The application of EB-equivalence rules to the structural reduction of GSPN models. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput., 15(3):296-302, 1992.
18. Harald Störrle. Semantics of control-flow in UML 2.0 activities. In Proc. VL/HCC'04, September 2004.
19. Naoshi Tabuchi, Naoto Sato, and Hiroaki Nakamura. Model-driven performance analysis of uml design models based on stochastic process algebra. Technical Report RT0604, 2005.
20. Jan Trowitzsch, Armin Zimmermann, and Günter Hommel. Towards quantitative analysis of real-time uml using stochastic petri nets. In IPDPS. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.