Design Environments for Global Applications

1
Design Environments for Global Applications

• DEGAS

2

• Plan of the review
• Introduction to the team and the project (5')
• Follow-up from previous review (10')
• Main technical achievements in the reference
  period (50')
• 30' Coreographer demo
• 10' Dynamic
• 10' Static
• Exploitation and dissemination, Impact assessment
  (20')
• 10' MMPORG videoclip
• 10' WebBased MicroBusiness
• 5. Financial aspects resources spent, etc. and
  Future plans (5')

3
PARTICIPANTS
PROJECT COORDINATOR
University of Trento Prof. Corrado
Priami Dipartimento di Informatica
e Telecomunicazioni Via Sommarive, 14 38050 Povo
(TN) - ITALY
University of Trento
Italy
Technical University of Denmark
Denmark
University of Pisa
Italy
University of Edinburgh
United Kingdom
Email priami_at_science.unitn.it Tel. 39 0461
882085 Fax [phone]
Motorola Electronics
Italy
Omnys Wireless Technology
Italy
Euro 2.283.386
TOTAL PROJECT COST
START DATE
1st January 2002
Euro 1.600.000
EU FUNDING
DURATION
40 months
4

• OBJECTIVES
• Degas addresses foundational aspects for the
  design of global applications by enhancing the
  state of the art in scientific as well as
  engineering principles. The main concerns are the
  specification in UML and the qualitative and
  quantitative analysis of global applications.
• DESCRIPTION OF WORK
• Customization of a tool to build the designers
  interface and manipulate UML models. Extraction
  from UML models to process algebra
  representation. Reflection of the formal analysis
  in UML notation. Case studies of two global
  (wireless) applications.
• EXPECTED RESULTS
• UML extensions. Definition and implementation of
  extractors. Definition and implementation of new
  models and techniques for the analysis of global
  applications.

5
THE PROJECT SCOPE
Designers Interface
DEGAS Environment
6
UNITN UNITN UEDIN UNITN DIPISA IMM MTCI
WP1 Management of the project WP2 Assessment of
progress and results WP3 UML feasibility,
modification and tool customization WP4
Extraction, Reflection and integration WP5
Dynamic analysis WP6 Static analysis WP7 Case
studies
Structure of the project
7
WP5
Dynamic analysis (PePa, EOS)
Case study 1
UML
WP6
WP3
Static analysis (LySa)
Case study 2
WP4
WP7
Structure of the project
8
D4 International WK proceedings UNITN D5 Final
report and TIP UNITN D13 Final report dynamic
techniques DIPISA D14 Final report static
techniques IMM D20 Reflector UNITN D21 UML
tool customization for reflection UEDIN D22 Degas
prototype UNITN D23 Project meetings UNITN D
26 Case studies MTCI
Deliverables
9

• INDICATORS
• POSITIONING WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE OF THE ART
• COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE/COMPETING
  APPROACHES
• USABILITY AND EXPLOITATION PERSPECTIVES
• DISSEMINATION
• OTHER SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA
• STRONG WEAK VERSION

Self-Evaluation Criteria
10
POSITIONING WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE OF THE
ART S1 - implementation of a real mobile MMPORG
(Massive Multi Player Online Role-playing Game)
game running in a distributed environment. W1 -
Ability of deriving quantitative measures about
protocols and for their performance analysis.
Self-Evaluation Criteria
11
COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE/COMPETING
APPROACHES S2 - Clarification of the
fundamentally different behaviours of model
checking and static analysis as regards protocol
validation The extractor, that allows UML users
to obtain representations of their protocols in
the process algebra LySa with no knowledge on
it. W2 - Capability of using model checking to
validate the flaws reported by static analysis.
Self-Evaluation Criteria
12
USABILITY AND EXPLOITATION PERSPECTIVES S3 -
Design of the analysis tool so that also
educated users outside of the research group
(mainly MSc-students) can use the tool for
realistic protocols. The PEPA workbench is now
equipped to accept models as XMI files from a
UML tool and will automatically reflect results
into the XMI file, removing the need for the
user to understand PEPA. The mathematics is
transparent to the user. S4 - The ability of
both PEPA and PEPA nets to handle real
global applications has been demonstrated on a
number of (published) case studies. W4 -
Ability to analyse the OASIS protocol for Single
Sign On and finding a new flaw.
Self-Evaluation Criteria
13
S5/W5 We developed an integrated environment
based on the coreographer that could surely be
exploited on software production frameworks. We
think to have surely matched this weak indicator
and having good chances to catch the strong one
as well.
Self-Evaluation
14
DISSEMINATION S6 - The ability to teach the
analysis method to advanced MSc- students and
PhD-students that subsequently can use it for
projects. W6 - Presentation of scientific
documentation to relevant conferences and
presence of the project on the web.
Self-Evaluation Criteria
15
OTHER SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA S7 - Organization of
international events on topics related to the
project and publication of proceedings in
scientific books. Jane Hillston winning of the
Roger Needham award for the PEPA project over
the last ten years, including the DEGAS
work. W7 - Publication of results in
relevant conferences and international
journals.
Self-Evaluation Criteria
16

• Publications 46 Presentations 39
• Meetings attended and visits
• Project meetings 3
• Visits among project partners 7 (1 long)
• Conference, Workshop, etc 12
• Other
• PhD courses 3
• PhD theses 2
• Undergraduate dissertations 3

• Master theses 6
• Organization of international events 2

Dissemination
17
Y1 recommendations
to clearly identify which part of the work on
modelling biological systems will be pursued in
the current project, how this work contributes to
the overall goals of the project, and which of
the currently planned work it will replace.
No biological work done under DEGAS, it is going
on with other funded projects
to further emphasize the integration of formal
systems models with UML models and to
clearly demonstrate the relevance of the former
within the framework of the later
Implementation of prototypes, analysis of case
studies, discovery of flaws.
18
Y2 main recommendation
To further investigate the AGILE airport case
study as a test case into DEGAS.
We fully exploited the example (recall
presentations)
19
Resources
20
Resources
21
Resources
22
FUTURE

• We wait for the approval of deliverables and then
• Dissemination material (DVD)
• TIP
• Final PPR
• Leaflets

23
FUTURE
Additional Partners
GC2
SENSORIA
Agile Degas