The POSEIDON Demonstrator

  • Piërre van de LaarEmail author


In this chapter, we discuss the Poseidon demonstrator: a demonstrator that integrates the individual research results of all partners of the Poseidon project. After describing how the Poseidon demonstrator was built, deployed, and operated, we will not only show many results obtained from the demonstrator in action, but also present our lessons-learned during the creation and usage of the Poseidon demonstrator. We conclude that a demonstrator not only increases the scientific value of the research results by ensuring reproducibility but also shows the relevance of the research results: they are compatible with each other and applicable in the application domain. Furthermore, a demonstrator generates more valuable feedback since the research results are clearly positioned in the application domain and better aligned with the experience and way-of-working of all stakeholders, both technical and non-technical.


Access Control Screen Shot Hardware Configuration Cold Fusion Academic Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research has been carried out as a part of the Poseidon project at Thales under the responsibilities of the Embedded Systems Institute (ESI). This project is partially supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs under the BSIK program.

We would like to thank all industrial and academic partners of the Poseidon project for their efforts to realize the Poseidon demonstrator. We would like to thank Hester van Ouwerkerk, Teade Punter, Jan Tretmans, Michael Borth, and Dave Watts for their useful feedback on an earlier version of this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Doornbos R, van Loo S (eds) (2012) From scientific instrument to industrial machine. Coping with architectural stress in embedded systems. SpringerBriefs in electrical and computer engineering. Springer: Dordrecht/LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Hage WR, Malaisé V, van Erp M, Schreiber G (2011) Linked open piracy. K-CAP 2011 Poster Session.
  3. 3.
    Hamberg R, Verriet J (eds) (2012) Automation in warehouse development. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heemels M, Muller G (eds) (2006) Boderc: model-based design of high-tech systems. Embedded Systems Institute, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janssens JHM, Hiemstra H, Postma EO (2010) Creating artificial vessel trajectories with Presto. In: 22nd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2010), LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van de Laar P, Punter T (eds) (2011) Views on evolvability of embedded systems. Embedded systems. Springer, Dordrecht/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathijssen R (ed) (2009) Trader: reliability of high-volume consumer products. Embedded Systems Institute, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tretmans J (ed) (2007) Tangram: model-based integration and testing of complex high-tech systems. Embedded Systems Institute, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Engelen R, Voeten J (eds) (2007) Ideals: evolvability of software-intensive high-tech systems. Embedded Systems Institute, EindhovenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embedded Systems InstituteEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations