Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The quest for runware: on compositional, executable and intuitive models

  • Expert's Voice
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We believe that future models of complex software and systems will combine the crucial traits of intuitiveness, compositionality, and executability. The importance of each of these to modeling is already well recognized, but our vision suggests a far more powerful synergy between them. First, models will be aligned with cognitive processes used by humans to think about system behavior and will be understood, and perhaps creatable, by almost anyone. Second, one will be able to build models incrementally, adding to, refining or sculpting away already-specified behaviors without changing most existing parts of the model. Third, there will be powerful ways to execute such intuitive and compositional models, in whole or in part, at any stage of the development. The presence of these three traits in a single artifact will blur the boundaries between natural-language requirements, formal models, and actual software, bringing in its wake a major advance in the way systems are built, and in their cost and quality. We propose the term runware to refer to this kind of higher level artifact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Backus, J.W., Beeber, R.J., Best, S., Goldberg, R., Haibt, L.M., Herrick, H.L., Nelson, R.A., Sayre, D., Sheridan, P.B, Stern, H., Ziller, I., Hughes, R.A., Nutt, R.: The FORTRAN automatic coding system. In: Papers presented at the February 26–28, 1957, western joint computer conference: Techniques for reliability, pp. 188–198. ACM (1957)

  2. Batory, D.: Product-line architectures. In: Smalltalk and Java Conference (1998)

  3. Begel, A., Graham, S.L.: An assessment of a speech-based programming environment. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2006. VL/HCC 2006, pp. 116–120. IEEE (2006)

  4. Bishop C.M.: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, vol. 4. Springer, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: A notion of glue expressiveness for component-based systems. In: CONCUR (2008)

  6. Bloem, R., Jobstmann, B., Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Saar, Y.: Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 78(3) 2011

  7. Bordini R.H., Dastani M., Dix J., Seghrouchni A.E.F.: Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bradbury, J.S., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J., Wermelinger, M.: A survey of self-management in dynamic software architecture specifications. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT Workshop on Self-Managed Systems, pp. 28–33. ACM (2004)

  9. Brooks, R.: A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot. IEEE J. Robot. Automat. 2(1) 1986

  10. Clarke E.M. Jr, Grumberg O., Peled D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Damm W., Harel D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. J. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 45–80 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Date C.J.: What Not How: The Business Rules Approach to Application Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, II J., Goel, M., Hylands, C., Kienhuis, B., Lee, E.A., Liu, J., Liu, X., Muliadi, L., Neuendorffer, S., Reekie, J. et al.: Overview of the Ptolemy project. Department EECS, University of California, Berkeley, CA, ERL Technical Report UCB/ERL (M99/37) (1999)

  14. Eclipse Foundation. Eclipse inetgrated development environment documentation. http://help.eclipse.org/indigo/. Accessed May 2012

  15. European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. EUROCONTROL Specifications For The Use Of Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles As Operational Air Traffic Outside Segregated Airspace. EUROCONTROL (2007)

  16. Forsyth, D.A., Ponce, J.: Computer vision: a modern approach. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Englewood Cliffs (2002)

  17. Harel D., Marelly R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harel D., Marron A., Weiss G.: Behavioral programming. Commun. ACM 55(7), 90–100 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harel, D., Marron, A., Weiss, G.: Programming coordinated scenarios in java. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), pp. 250–274 (2010)

  20. Harel D., Pnueli A.: On the Development of Reactive Systems. NATO ASI Series, vol. F-13. Springer-Verlag, New York (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harel D., Rumpe B.: Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of semantics?. Computer 37(10), 64–72 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jackson M., Zave P.: Distributed feature composition: a virtual architecture for telecommunications services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(10), 831–847 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kandel E.R., Schwartz J.H., Jessell T.M. et al.: Principles of Neural Science, Vol. 4. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP) (1997)

  25. Kortum, P.: HCI beyond the GUI: design for haptic, speech, olfactory and other nontraditional interfaces. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2008)

  26. Koza, J., Poli, R.: Genetic programming. Search Methodol, pp. 127–164 (2005)

  27. LaValle S.M.: Planning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Louden, K.C., Lambert, K.A.: Programming languages: principles and practices. Course Technology (2011)

  29. McKinley P.K., Sadjadi S.M., Kasten E.P., Cheng B.H.C.: Composing adaptive software. Computer 37(7), 56–64 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mellor S.J., Balcer M., Foreword By-Jacoboson I.: Executable UML: a foundation for model-driven architectures. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc, Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mernik M., Heering J., Sloane A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 37(4), 316–344 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Meyer B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice hall, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 35–46. ACM (2000)

  34. Object Management Group. OMG Model-Driven Architecture. http://www.omg.org/mda/. Accessed May 2012

  35. Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Superstructure version 2.4. Accessed May 2012

  36. OSCI. Open SystemC Initiative. IEEE 1666 Language Reference Manual. http://www.systemc.org. Accessed Sept. 2011

  37. Prehofer, C.: Feature-oriented programming: a fresh look at objects. In: ECOOP (1997)

  38. Resnick M., Maloney J., Monroy-Hernández A., Rusk N., Eastmond E., Brennan K., Millner A., Rosenbaum E., Silver J., Silverman B. et al.: Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52(11), 60–67 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Robinson A., Voronkov A.: Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Saraswat, V.A., Rinard, M., Panangaden, P.: The semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 333–352. ACM (1991)

  41. Schmidt D.C.: Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Simonyi, C.: The death of computer languages, the birth of intentional programming. In: NATO Science Committee Conference (1995)

  43. Sterling L., Shapiro E., Eytan M.: The Art of Prolog, vol. 94. Wiley Online Library, London (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  44. US General Services Administration. Acquisition System Requirements Draft. http://www.acquisition.gov/fas_reqdraft042808.pdf. Accessed May 2012

  45. USDA-Agricultural Research Service. CEAP/STEWARDS System Requirements Specification. USDA (2006)

  46. Wadler, P.: Monads for Functional Programming. Adv. Funct. Program. LNCS, vol. 925, pp. 24–52 (1995)

  47. Zave P., Jackson M.: Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 6(1), 1–30 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    David Harel & Assaf Marron

Authors
  1. David Harel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Assaf Marron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Assaf Marron.

Additional information

Communicated by Prof. Jon Whittle and Gregor Engels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harel, D., Marron, A. The quest for runware: on compositional, executable and intuitive models. Softw Syst Model 11, 599–608 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0258-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0258-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation