Advertisement

A real-time profile for UML

  • Susanne GrafEmail author
  • Ileana Ober
  • Iulian Ober
Special Section on Specification and Validation of Models of Real Time and Embedded Systems with UML

Abstract

This paper describes an approach for real-time modelling in UML, focusing on analysis and verification of time and scheduling-related properties. To this aim, a concrete UML profile, called the ωprofile, is defined, dedicated to real-time modelling by identifying a set of relevant concepts for real-time modelling which can be considered as a refinement of the standard SPT profile. The profile is based on a rich concept of event representing an instant of state change, and allows the expression of duration constraints between occurrences of events. These constraints can be provided in the form of OCL-like expressions annotating the specification or by means of state machines, stereotyped as ‘observers’. A framework for modelling scheduling issues is obtained by adding a notion of resource and a notion of execution time. For proving the relevance of these choices, the profile has been implemented in a validation tool and applied to case studies. It has a formal semantics and is sufficiently general and expressive to define a semantic underpinning for other real-time profiles of UML which in general define more restricted frameworks. In particular, most existing profiles handling real-time issues define a number of predefined attributes representing particular durations or constraints on them and their semantic interpretation can be expressed in the OMEGA-RT profile.

Keywords

Real-time systems Modeling Timing properties Timing analysis Formal verification UML Real-time profile OMEGA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdeddaíom, Y., Asarin, E., Maler, O. On optimal scheduling under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of TACAS 2003. Warsaw, LNCS 2619 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdeddaíom, Y., Asarin, E., Maler, O.: On optimal scheduling under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of TACAS 2003; Warsaw, LNCS 2619, 2003; with timed automata. Theor.Comp. Sci. (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aghav, J., Petitpierre, C.: Validating real-time behavioral patterns of embedded controllers. In: SVERTS (Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems) workshop at UML 2003. CA, USA, October 2003, Proceedings (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comp. Sci. 126, 183–235 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: A really temporal logic. J. ACM 41, 181–204 (1994) (a preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of 30th FOCS 1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Artisan Real Time Studio, http://www.artisansw.com/products/products.asp (2001)
  7. 7.
    Ben-Abdalla, H., Leue, S.: Expressing and analysing timing constraints in message sequence chart specifications. Technical report, U. Waterloo (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benveniste, A., Caspi, P., Edwards, S.A., Halbwachs, N., Le Guernic, P., de Simone, R.: The synchronous languages 12 years later. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 91 no. 1 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bozga, M., Graf, S. Mounier, L.: IF-2.0: A validation environment for component-based real-time systems. In: Proceedings of Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV'02, Copenhagen, number 2404 in LNCS. Springer Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bozga, M., Graf, S., Ober, I., Ober, I., Sifakis, J.: The IF toolset. In: SFM-04:RT 4th Int. School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems: Real Time, no. 3185 in LNCS (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozga, M., Graf, L., Kerbrat, A., Mounier, L., Ober, I., Vincent, D.: Timed extensions for SDL. In: SDL Forum 2001. LNCS (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Closse, E., Poize, M., Pulou, J., Sifakis, J., Venier, P., Weil, D., Yovine, S.: Taxys: a tool for the developpment and verification real-time embedded systems. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.), Proceedings of CAV'01, LNCS 2102. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMEGA Consortium. Webpage of the OMEGA IST project. http://www-omega-imag.fr/
  14. 14.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing life into Message Sequence Charts. Journal on Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damm, W., Josko, B., Pnueli, A., Votintseva, A.: Understanding UML: A formal semantics of concurrency and communication in real-time UML. In: de Boer, F., Bonsangue, M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), vol. 2852 of LNCS Tutorials, pp. 70–98 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    David, A., Möller, O., Yi, W.: Formal verification UML statecharts with real time extensions. In: Proceedings of FASE 2002 (ETAPS 2002), vol. 2306 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag (April 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Simone, R., André, C.: Towards a “Synchronous Reactive” UML profile. STTT, Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf.this volume (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diefenbruch, M., Heck, E., Hintelmann, J., Müller-Clostermann, B.: Performance evaluation of SDL systems adjunct by queuing models. In: Proceedings of SDL-Forum (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Douglass, B.P.: Doing Hard Time, Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks, and Patterns. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faltin, N., Lambert, L., Mitschele-Thiel, A., Slomka, F.: An annotational extension of message sequence charts to support performance engineering. In: 8th SDL Forum. North-Holland (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fersman, E., Mokrushin, L., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Schedulability anaysis using two clocks. In: ETAPS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flake, S., Mueller, W.: A UML profile for real-time constraints with the OCL. In: Cook, S., J⃩z⃩quel, J.M., Hussmann, H. (eds.), UML'2002, Dresden, Germany, no. 2460 in LNCS. Springer Verlag, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graf, S.: Expression of time and duration constraints in SDL. In: 3rd SAM Workshop on SDL and MSC, University of Wales Aberystwyth, no. 2599 in LNCS (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graf, S., Hooman, J.: Correct development of embedded systems. In: European Workshop on Software Architecture: Languages, Styles, Models, Tools, and Applications (EWSA 2004), co-located with ICSE 2004, St Andrews, Scotland, LNCS 3047, pp. 241–249. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graf, S., Ober, I.: A real-time profile for UML and how to adapt it to SDL. In: SDL Forum 2003, July 1–4, Stuttgart, vol. 2708 of LNCS (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: Component-based construction of deadlock-free systems. In: Proceedings of FSTTCS 2003, Mumbai, India, LNCS 2914, pp. 420–433 (2003). downloadable through http://www-verimag.imag.fr/sifakis/
  27. 27.
    G⃶ssler, G., Sifakis, J.: Priority systems. In: Proceedings of FMCO'03. LNCS 3188 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H., Pnueli, A.: Smart Play-Out Extended: Time and Forbidden Elements. In: International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC04), pp. 2–10. IEEE Press (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Playing with time: On the specification and execution of time-enriched LSCs. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS 2002). Fort Worth, Texas (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harel, E., Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A.: Explicit clock temporal logic. In: Proceedings, 5th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 90, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 402–413. IEEE Computer Society Press (1990)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ilogix: Rhapsody development environment. http://www.ilogix.com/sublevel.aspx?id=53
  32. 32.
    U-T.: Recommendation Z.100. Specification and Description Language (SDL). Technical Report Z-100, International Telecommunication Union—Standardization Sector (November 2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    U-T.: Recommendation Z.120. Message Sequence Charts. Technical Report Z-120, International Telecommunication Union— Standardization Sector. Genève (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jansen, D.J., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P.: A QoS-oriented extension of UML statecharts. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.), UML 2003—The Unified Modeling Language. Model Languages and Applications. 6th International Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, October 2003, Proceedings, vol. 2863 of LNCS, pp. 76–91. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kloukinas, C., Yovine, S.: Synthesis of safe, QoS extendible, application specific schedulers for heterogeneous real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'03). ISBN 0-7695-1936-9 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S., Rauh, C.: Model checking—timed UML state machines and collaborations. In: Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, 7th International Symposium, FTRTFT 2002, Oldenburg, Germany, September 9–12, 2002, vol. 2469 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 395–416. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kosiuczenko, P.: Formalizing time aspects in message sequence charts. Technical report no. 9703, Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitäMünchen Institut für Informatik (1997)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kyas, M., de Boer, F.S.: On message specification in OCL. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M. (eds.), Compositional Verification in UML, vol. 101 of ENTCS, pp. 73–93. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lambert, J.-L.: PMSC for performance evaluation. In: 1st Workshop on Performance and Time in SDL and MSC, Technical Report 1/98, IMMD VII. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal in a nutshell. STTT, 1(1–2), 134–152 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lavazza, L., Quaroni, G., Venturelli, M.: Combining UML and formal notions for modelling real-time systems. In: Joint 8th European Software Engineering Conference, 9th ACM SIGSOFT. ACM SIGSOFT (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Layland, J.W., Liu, C.L.: Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J. ACM 20(1) (1973)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lipari, G., Buttazzo, G.: Schedulability analysis of periodic and aperiodic tasks with resource constraints. Journal of System Architecture, Special Isssue on Real Time Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meunier, J.-N., Lippert, F., Jadhav, R.: RT modelling with UML for safety critical applications: the HIDOORS project example. In: SVERTS Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems workshop at UML 2003. CA, USA, October 2003, Proceedings (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mitschele-Thiehl, A., Müller-Clostermann, B.: Performance engineering of SDL/MSC systems. Comp. Netw. 31(17), 1801–1815 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nicollin, X., Sifakis, J.: An Overview and Synthesis on Timed Process Algebras. In: Proceedings of CAV'91, vol. 575 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validation of UML models via a mapping to communicating extended timed automata. In: 11th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, 2004, vol. LNCS 2989 (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    OberGraf-umlif-sttt04 Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validating timed UML models by simulation and verification. STTT, Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. this volume (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ober, I., Ober, I., Lesens, D., Graf, S.: Un profil UML et un outil pour la modélisation et la validation de systèmes temps-réel. Génie Logiciel (ISSN 0295-6322), special issue for the Journée NEPTUNE: Ingénierie des Modéles-vérification de modéles 73, 33–38 (May 2005)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification—Object Constraint Language Version 2.0 (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    OMG.: Response to the OMG RFP for Schedulability, Performance and Time, v. 2.0. OMG document ad/2002-03-04 (March 2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    OMG.: Model Driven Architecture.http://www.omg.org/mda (2003)
  53. 53.
    OMG.: UML 2.0 superstructure proposal v. 2.0. Technical report, OMG document ad/03-01-02 (January 2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
  55. 55.
    Rational/IBM: Rose real-time development environment. http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/developer/roexde/
  56. 56.
    Rjakumar, R., Sha, L., Lehoczky, J., Ramamritham, K.: An optimal priority inheritance policy for synchronization in real-time systems. In: Advances in Real Time Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1995)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ruf, J., Kropf, T.: Symbolic Model and Checking for a Discrete Clocked Temporal Logic with Intervals. In: CHARME'97, pp.146–166 Montreal, Canada (1997)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Selic, B., Gullekson, G., Ward, P.T.: Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling. John Wiley & Sons (1994)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shankar, S., Asa, S.: Formal semantics of UML with real-time constructs. In: Stevens, P., Whittle J., Booch, G. eds., UML 2003—The Unified Modeling Language. Model Languages and Applications. 6th International Conference. San Francisco, CA, USA, October 2003, Proceedings, vol. 2863 of LNCS, pp. 60–75. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sifakis, J.: Use of Petri Nets for Performance Evaluation. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Modeling and Evaluation, pp. 75–93. IFIP, North Holland (1977)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Slomka, F., Zant, J., Lambert, L.: MSC-based schedulability analysis. In: 1st Workshop on Performance and Time in SDL and MSC, Technical Report 1/98, IMMD VII. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (1998)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Spuri, M., Buttazzo, G.: Scheduling aperiodic tasks in dynamic priority systems. J. Real Time Syst. (1996)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Telelogic: TAU Generation 2 Reference Manual (2002)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    van der Zwaag, M., Hooman, J.: A semantics of communicating reactive objects with timing. STTT, Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. this volume (2005)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yovine, S. Kronos: A verification tool for real-time systems. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 1(1–2) (1997)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zheng, T., Khendek, F.: Time consistency of MSC-2000 specifications. Comp. Netw. 42(3), 303–322 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VERIMAGCentre Equation-2GièresFrance

Personalised recommendations