Collaborative Construction of Telecommunications Services. An Enterprise Architecture and Model Driven Engineering Method

Collaborative Construction of
Telecommunications Services.
An Enterprise Architecture and
Model Driven Engineering Method

Vanea Chiprianov

Supervisors: Yvon Kermarrec
Work
Siegfried Rouvrais

Ph.D. defense 16 January 2012
Affiliation
Teaching
assistant
Scholarship

Agenda

 Challenges in telecom service life-cycle
 How to reduce telecom service construction time ?
 State of the art: Advantages and limitations
 Solution/Contribution:
1.Telecom service construction process
2.Tool building process
3.Software tools for telecom service construction
 Complete case study on a multimedia
conferencing service
 Conclusion and perspectives

page 2/55 Chiprianov Ph.D. defense Collaborative construction of telecommunications services

Context: Telecom service

''The offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users
as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used.''
[Federal Communications Commission, 1996]
 Broad definition:
• Any content of telecommunications
- e.g. voice, video
• Several types of facilities
- e.g. circuit or packet switched network
 Examples:
• Multimedia conferencing service, phone call, et al.


Context: Telecom service stakeholders


Context: Telecom service stakeholders

Stakeholders cf.
[Haalstrand, 1994]

Context: Telecom
service life-cycle

time

[Berndt, 1994]


Context: Our focus
on telecom service
life-cycle

time


Context: Main challenges in telecom
service life-cycle

 Convergence of the traditional circuit-switched
networks with the packet-switched ones
• Services as software
 Increased involvement of the End User in the
telecom service life-cycle
 Market deregulation
• Increased competition
 Concept-to-market time, quality of service, cost, et
al.


Agenda


Chiprianov Ph.D. defense Collaborative construction of telecommunications services

Research question

 How to reduce telecommunications service
construction time while affecting non-negatively
other parameters (e.g. Cost, QoS, QoE) ?

RQ 1 Construction process

RQ 2 Software tools RQ 3 Tool building process


State of the art

Obs.: existing literature focuses on software tools.

Requirements of Service Providers and Developers
for Service Creation Environment (SCE):

• Req 1: An overall model
• Req 6: Integration
● Req 2: Domain specificity
• Req 7: Reuse
● Req 3: Rapid prototyping
• Req 8: Wide range of
● Req 4: Collaborative
services
support
• Req 9: Easy evolution of
● Req 5: Early
services
verification/simulation

[Blum, 2009], [Haalstrand, 1994], [Khlifi, 2008], [Kosmas, 1997], [Yelmo, 2008]


State of the art: Service Creation
Environments categories

For Next  Cat Session Initiation
Generation
1: SIP-dependent Protocol (SIP)
Network (NGN)  Cat 2: SIP- independent [Rosenberg, 2002]
(circuit-switched
networks)  Cat 3: NGN composition

For Web  Cat 4: Parlay X Parlay X - [ETSI, 2006]
(packet-switched
networks)  Cat 5: Web mash-up

 Cat 6: Hybrid


State of the art: Comparison of SCEs


advantages of Web approaches

bad -- - 0 + ++ good


advantage of NGN approaches

bad -- - 0 + ++ good


State of the art: Major limitations

 No
category of SCE addresses Req 1: An overall
model

 Choice between either:
• Req 2: Domain specificity XOR
• Req 3 : Rapid prototyping, Req 7: Reuse, Req 8:
Wide range and Req 9: Easy evolution



 No
model
Enterprise Architecture (EA)




 No
model
Enterprise Architecture (EA)

• Req 2: Domain specificity XOR AND

Model Driven Engineering (MDE)


Enterprise Architecture

''A coherent whole of principles, methods and
models that are used in the design and realization
of the enterprise's organizational structure,
business processes, information systems and
infrastructure.'
[Jonkers, 2006]

• Enterprise Architecture frameworks (e.g. TOGAF)
• Enterprise Architecture Modeling Languages
(EAMLs) (e.g. ArchiMate)


Contributions of EA towards fulfilling SCE
requirements

 Req 1: Overall model  Unified View
 Req 6: Integration  ArchiMate inter-layer
relations
 Req 7: Reuse  Layered architecture

 Req 8: Wide range  Separation from the
platform
 TOGAf addresses the
 Req 9: Easy evolution
evolution of EAs


Model Driven Engineering (MDE)

A software development method which focuses on
creating and exploiting domain models to
simulate, estimate, understand, communicate and
produce code.
[Gherbi, 2009]

• The Meta-modeling approach for language definition
• Model Transformations (model to model, code
generation)
• Meta-tools


Contributions of MDE towards fulfilling
SCE requirements

 Req 2: Domain  Meta-models
specificity
 Req 3: Rapid  High automation
prototyping
 Req 5: Early
 Leveraging domain-
verification specific tools
 Req 6: Integration
 Model Transformations
 Req 7: Reuse
 Capture by meta-
models
 Req 8: Wide range  Platform independence
 Req 9: Easy evolution  High automation


Agenda



Solution: Telecom service construction
process

 Responsibilities of a modeler
[Kruchten, 2008]
Modeler = system/software architect/designer

1.Model
2.Test
3.Collaborate
4.Interoperate


Solution: Telecom
service construction
process

1.Model
2.Test
3.Collaborate
4.Interoperate


Solution: Telecom
service construction
process


Solution: Tool
building process

1.Model
2.
3.
4.


Solution: Tool
building process


Solution: Tool
building process

1.
2.Test
3.
4.


Solution:
Tool building
process


Solution: Tool
building process

1.
2.
3.Collaborate
4.


Solution:
Tool building
process


Solution: Tool
building process

1.
2.
3.
4.Interoperate


Solution:
Tool building
process


Solution: Software tools

1.Model
2.
3.
4.


Solution: Modeling
with DSMLs

Domain Specific Modeling
Language (DSML) = graphical
language that offers
1.Model
2.
● expressive power focused 3.
on a particular domain,
● to visualize, specify,
4.
construct and document the
artifacts of a software-
intensive system.

[Booch, 2005], [Deursen,
2000]


Solution:
Modeling
with DSMLs

Telecom Archi (GPL
Type licence)
extension
[http://archi.cetis.ac.uk/]

Solution: Modeling
with DSMLs

 Meta-models: 46 concepts
 Code generation semantics: IyassAlloush, masters
interhship, 6months, 39.8 KB
 Graphical editor : 395.8 KB



1.
2.Test
3.
4.


Solution: Testing
through leverage of COTS

Components Off The Shelf
(COTS) = ''a commercially 1.
available or open source 2.Test
piece of software that other
software projects can reuse 3.
and integrate into their own 4.
products''

[Torchiano, 2004]


Solution: Leveraging the COTS –
Transform to MM testing

Excerpt of Xpand template for OPNET input model generation

Excerpt from the model of a Xpand
conferencing service at the Telecom (OpenArchitectureWare) The static configuration of
ArchiMate Technology layer the conferencing service
[Efftinge, 2006] excerpt model for OPNET


Solution: Leveraging the COTS –
Transform to MM testing

Excerpt of Xpand template for OPNET input model generation

Excerpt from the model of a Xpand
conferencing service at the Telecom (OpenArchitectureWare) The static configuration of
ArchiMate Technology layer [Efftinge, 2006] the conferencing service
excerpt model for OPNET

 Codegeneration Model Transformation: Iyass
Alloush, masters internship, 6 months, 122.4 KB



1.
2.
3.Collaborate
4.


Solution: Collaborating by
capturing and retrieving
Decision Rationale
1.
Decision Rationale DSML 2.
3.Collaborate
Decision Rationale = 4.
the justification behind
decisions, the reasoning
that goes into
determining the design of
the artifact.

[Dutoit, 2006]


Solution: Defining a Decision Rationale
DSML

 Meta-model: 6
concepts
 Graphical editor : Adil
Meribaa and Mosbah
Lassoued, masters
internships, 2 weeks,
108.8 KB



1.
2.
3.
4.Interoperate


However, in the particular case of
ArchiMate

The ArchiMate Business-Application alignment, from [OpenGroup, 2009]

The ArchiMate Application-
Technology alignment, from
[OpenGroup, 2009]


Agend



Case study:
Modeling

1.Model
2.
3.
4.

A multimedia
conferencing
service

Case study: Modeling with DSMLs a
multimedia conferencing service

The model of a conferencing
Service at the Telecom
ArchiMate Business layer



The model of a conferencing service at the Telecom ArchiMate Application layer



The model of a conferencing service at the Telecom ArchiMate Technology layer


Case study: Testing

1.
2.Test
3.
4.


Case study: Testing through leverage of
COTS a multimedia conferencing service
OPNET=network simulator

http://www.opnet.com

OPNET simulation results for an
IMS node of the conferencing service

The static configuration of
the conferencing service
excerpt model for OPNET


Case study:
Collaborating

1.
2.
3.Collaborate
4.


Case study: Collaborating by capturing
Decision Rationale with a DR DSML on a

Example of Collaboration Design Rationale ArchiMate extension used with a conferencing service
example developed at the Application layer of the Telecommunications ArchiMate extension.


Solution: Meeting the SCE requirements



 No
model



Solution/Contribution: Overcoming major
limitations of the state of the art

 No
model
Extending EAMLs (ArchiMate)
• Req 2: Domain specificity XOR AND DSMLs

Models, code generation, MTs, HOTs, etc


Solution/Contribution: advantages

 Provides a method
Method = - a set of modeling conventions (Modeling Language - ML)
- a process: - provides guidance as to the order of the activities,
- specifies what artifacts should be developed using the ML.
[Ramsin, 2008]

 Reflects current practices in industry
(more easily) accepted by practitioners
 Relies
on models and offers high automation
degree
more rapid software tool building
 Contributes
towards fulfilling all Service Providers'
and Developers' requirements


Solution/Contribution to the research
question
 How to reduce telecommunications service
construction time while affecting non-negatively
other parameters (e.g. Cost, QoS, QoE) ?

RQ 1 Construction process RQ 2 Software tools RQ 3 Tool building process

O
EM
D


Solution/Contribution: limitations

•The waterfall-like
construction process is not
flexible.
• Testing/simulation results
have to be integrated
manually into models.

•The SCE and •Viewpoint
construction process interoperability
need testing by depends heavily on
Service Providers common entities
and Developers


Solution/Contribution: perspectives

•Introduce more flexibility
(e.g., iterative, agile) in the
construction process.
•(Semi-)automatic integrating
of testing/simulation results
into models.

•Construct Telecom
DSML MMs from e.g.
Frameworx
•Define alignment •Implement the
interoperability
measures to ensure
process
viewpoint
interoperability (e.g.
[Simonin, 2011])


Personal publications
1.Chiprianov V., Kermarrec Y., Rouvrais S.: Integrating DSLs into a Software Engineering Process: Application to Collaborative
Construction of Telecom Services. Ed. M. Mernik, Formal and Practical Aspects of Domain-Specific Languages: Recent
Developments, IGI Global, 2012 (submitted).
2.Chiprianov V., Kermarrec Y., Rouvrais S., Simonin J.: Extending Enterprise Architecture Modeling Languages for Collaboration.
Application to Telecommunications Service Design. Software and Systems Modeling, 2012 (submitted).
3.Chiprianov V., Kermarrec Y., Rouvrais S.: Extending Enterprise Architecture Modelling Languages: Application to
Telecommunications Service Creation. The 9th Enterprise Engineering track at the 27 th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC),
Trento, Italy, 6pp, accepted, (2011) – rank B [ERA].
4.Chiprianov V., Alloush I., Kermarrec Y., Rouvrais S.: Telecommunications Service Creation: Towards Extensions for Enterprise
Architecture Modeling Languages. In: Proc. of the 6th Intl Conf. on Software and Data Technologies (ICSOFT), Seville, Spain, vol 1,
pp. 23-29, (2011) - rank B [ERA].
5.Chiprianov V., Kermarrec Y., Rouvrais S.: Towards semantic interoperability of graphical domain specific modeling languages for
telecommunications service design. In: Proc. of the 2nd Intl Conf. on Models and Ontology-based Design of Protocols, Architectures
and Services (MOPAS), Budapest, Hungary, pp.21-24, (2011).
6.Chiprianov, V., Kermarrec, Y. and Alff, P.: A Model-Driven Approach for Telecommunications Network Services Definition. In:
Proceedings of the 15th Open European Summer School and IFIP TC6. 6 WS on The Internet of the Future, LNCS, pages 199–207,
Barcelona, Spain, (2009).
7.Rouvrais S., Chiprianov V.: Modeling and Architecting Educational Frameworks. In: Electronic Proc. of the 7th Intl CDIO Conf.,
Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen (2011).
8.Chiprianov, V., Kermarrec, Y., Rouvrais, S.: Meta-tools for Software Language Engineering: A Flexible Collaborative Modeling
Language for Efficient Telecommunications Service Design. In: FlexiTools WS, 32nd ACM/IEEE Intl. Conf. on Soft. Engineering
(ICSE), Cape Town, South Africa, 5 pp, (2010).
9.Chiprianov, V., Kermarrec, Y.: An Approach for Constructing a Domain Definition Metamodel with ATL. In: Model Transformation
with ATL, 1st Intl. WS,Nantes,France, pp 18-33, (2009).
10.Chiprianov V., Kermarec Y., Rouvrais S.: Practical Model Extension for Modeling Language Profiles. An Enterprise Architecture
Modeling Language Extension for Telecommunications Service Creation. 7émes Journées sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles,
Lille, France, pp. 85-91, 2011.
11.Chiprianov, V., Kermarrec, Y.: Model-based DSL Frameworks: A Simple Graphical Telecommunications Specific Modeling
Language. In: 5émes Journées sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles, Nancy, France, pages 179–186, (2009).

Presentation bibliography
 [Bernardi, 2011] S. Bernardi, J. Merseguer & D. Petriu. A dependability profile within MARTE. Software and
Systems Modeling, vol. 10, pp. 313–336, 2011.
 [Bertin, 2009] E. Bertin. Architecture of communication services in a convergence context (in French). PhD
thesis, National Institut of Telecommunications and Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6, 2009
 [Booch, 2005] G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh & I. Jacobson. Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The Addison-
Wesley Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 2005.
 [Blum, 2009] N. Blum, T. Magedanz, F. Schreiner & S. Wahle. From IMS Management to SOA Based NGN
Management. J. Netw. Syst. Manage., vol. 17, pp. 33–52, 2009.
 [Deursen, 2000] A. Deursen, P. Klint & J. Visser. Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography.
SIGPLAN Not., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 26–36, 2000.
 [Dutoit, 2006] A.H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrík & B. Paech. Rationale management in software engineering:
Concepts and techniques. Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 1–48, 2006.
 [Efftinge, 2006] S. Efftinge & C. Kadura. OpenArchitectureWare 4.1 Xpand Language Reference. Technical
report, OpenArchitectureWare, 2006.
 [ETSI, 2006] ETSI. Standard ES 202 391-1, Open Service Access (OSA); Parlay X Web Services; Part 1:
Common (Parlay X 2), version 1.2.1, 2006.
 [FCC, 1996] FCC. Telecommunications Act of 1996. 1996.
 [Gherbi, 2009] T. Gherbi, D. Meslati & I. Borne. MDE between Promises and Challenges. In 11th Intl. Conf.
on Computer Modelling and Simulation (UKSIM), pp. 152 –155, 2009.
 [Hallstrand, 1994] J. Hållstrand & D. Martin. Industrial Requirements on a Service Creation Environment. In
Proc. of the 2nd Intl. Conf. on Intelligence in Broadband Services and Networks: Towards a Pan-European
Telecom-munication Service Infrastructure, pp. 17–25, London, UK, 1994.


Presentation bibliography
 [Jonkers, 2006] H. Jonkers, M. Lankhorst, H.Doest, F. Arbab, H. Bosma & R. Wieringa. Enterprise
architecture: Management tool and blueprint for the organisation. Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 8, pp.
63–66, 2006
 [Khlifi, 2008] H. Khlifi & J.-C. Gregoire. IMS Application Servers: Roles, Requirements, and Implementation
Technologies. Internet Computing, IEEE, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 40 –51, 2008.
 [Kosmas, 1997] N. Kosmas & K. J. Turner. Requirements for Service Creation Environments. In 2nd Intl Ws
on Applied Formal Methods in System Design, p. 133 - 137, 1997.
 [OpenGroup, 2009] The Open Group. ArchiMate 1.0 Specification, 2009.
 [Ramsin, 2008] R. Ramsin & R. F. Paige. Process-centered review of object oriented software development
methodologies. ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 40, pp. 3:1–3:89, 2008.
 [Rosenberg, 2002] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R. Sparks, M.
Handley & E. Schooler. SIP: session initiation protocol. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): RFC 3261,
2002.
 [Simonin, 2011] J. Simonin, E. Bertin, Y. Le Traon, J.-M. Jezequel & N. Crespi. Analysis and improvement of
the alignment between business and information system for telecom services. International Journal On
Advances in Software, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 117–128, 2011.
 [Torchiano, 2004] Marco Torchiano & Maurizio Morisio. Overlooked Aspects of COTS-Based Development.
IEEE Softw., vol. 21, pages 88–93, 2004.
 [Yelmo, 2008] J. C. Yelmo, J. M. del Alamo, R. Trapero, P. Falcarin, J. Yu, B. Carro, C. Baladron. A user-
centric service creation approach for next generation networks. Proceedings of the First ITU-T Kaleidoscope
Academic Conference Innovations in NGN: Future Network and Services, 2008.


Collaborative Construction of Telecommunications Services. An Enterprise Architecture and Model Driven Engineering Method

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Collaborative Construction of Telecommunications Services. An Enterprise Architecture and Model Driven Engineering Method

Similar to Collaborative Construction of Telecommunications Services. An Enterprise Architecture and Model Driven Engineering Method (20)

More from Vanea Chiprianov

More from Vanea Chiprianov (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaborative Construction of Telecommunications Services. An Enterprise Architecture and Model Driven Engineering Method