Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 95–108 | Cite as

Hybrid MARTE statecharts

  • Jing Liu
  • Ziwei Liu
  • Jifeng He
  • Frédéric Mallet
  • Zuohua Ding
Research Article

Abstract

The specification of modeling and analysis of real-time and embedded systems (MARTE) is an extension of the unified modeling language (UML) in the domain of real-time and embedded systems. Even though MARTE time model offers a support to describe both discrete and dense clocks, the biggest effort has been put so far on the specification and analysis of discrete MARTE models. To address hybrid real-time and embedded systems, we propose to extend statecharts using both MARTE and the theory of hybrid automata. We call this extension hybrid MARTE statecharts. It provides an improvement over the hybrid automata in that: the logical time variables and the chronometric time variables are unified. The formal syntax and semantics of hybrid MARTE statecharts are given based on labeled transition systems and live transition systems. As a case study, we model the behavior of a train control system with hybrid MARTE statecharts to demonstrate the benefit.

Keywords

UML MARTE hybrid automata hybrid MARTE statechart train control system 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    UML superstructure specification v2.2. Object Management Group, 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Selic B. A systematic approach to domain-specific language design using UML. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing. 2007, 2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thoen F, Catthoor F. Modeling, verification, and exploration of tasklevel concurrency of real-time embedded systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    UML Profile for MARTE, v1.0. Object Management Group, 2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    UML profile for schedulability, performance, and time specification, v1.1, 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    André C, Mallet F, De Simone R. Modeling time (s). In: Proceedings of the 10th Internation Conference of Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, 2007, 4735: 559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benveniste A, Caspi P, Edwards S A, Halbwachs N, Guernic P L, Simoned R. The synchronous languages 12 years later. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2003, 91(1): 64–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    André C, Mallet F, Peraldi-Frati M. A multiform time approach to realtime system modeling; application to an automotive system. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems. SIES’07. 234–241Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    André C. Syntax and semantics of the clock constraint specification language (CCSL). 2009Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mallet F. Clock constraint specification language: specifying clock constraints with uml/marte. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 2008, 4(3): 309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaft V. d A, Schumacher H. An introduction to hybrid dynamical systems (Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 251). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lygeros J, Lynch N. Strings of vehicles: modeling and safety conditions. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 1998, 273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Casagrande A, Piazza C, Policriti A, Mishra B. Inclusion dynamics hybrid automata. Information and Computation, 2008, 206(12): 1394–1424MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harel D. Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Science of computer programming, 1987, 8(3): 231–274MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu H, Yu S. Are statecharts finite automata? Implementation and Application of Automata, 2009, 258–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sourrouille J, Caplat G. Constraint checking in UML modeling. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 2002, 217–224Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edalat A, Krznaric M, Lieutier A. Domain-theoretic solution of differential equations (scalar fields). In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference on the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics. 2006, 83Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grosu R, Smolka S. Safety-liveness semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design. 2005, 6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henzinger T, Kopke P, Wong-Toi H. The expressive power of clocks. Automata, Languages and Programming, 1995, 417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henzinger T. Sooner is safer than later. Information Processing Letters, 1992, 43(3): 135–141MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IEEE recommended practice for communications-based train control (CBTC) system design and functional allocations, 2008. IEEE Std 1474.3-2008Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee E, Tripakis S. Modal models in ptolemy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Equation-Based Object-Oriented Modeling Languages and Tools (EOOLT). 2010, 11–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jing Liu
    • 1
  • Ziwei Liu
    • 1
  • Jifeng He
    • 1
  • Frédéric Mallet
    • 2
  • Zuohua Ding
    • 3
  1. 1.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy ComputingEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.INRIA Sophia Antipolis MéditerranéeSophia AntipolisFrance
  3. 3.Center of Math Computing and Software EngineeringZhejiang Sci-Tech UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations