Systematic Composition of Services from Distributed Systems for Highly Dynamic Collaboration Processes

  • Sebastian Müller
  • Peter Liggesmeyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)


Establishing collaboration processes of systems in an open and dynamically changing environment like the automotive domain will inescapably lead to a varying availability of shared services. A vivid example is driving in a platoon, where smaller distances between vehicles are made possible due to additional safety related runtime guarantees provided by surrounding vehicles. In such collaboration scenarios environmental conditions can change, driving behavior from surrounding vehicles may not be adequate or hardware/software failure of involved systems may occur. For safety critical use cases like platooning, such degraded or even missing collaboration capabilities can rapidly lead to hazardous situations due to the highly dynamic context. When such events occur, only an immediate and situation adapted reaction behavior can prevent physical or material damage. For the certification of such described dynamic collaboration processes, it is therefore essential to develop a conclusive safety concept for each individual system, which also considers the return to a safe mode. The presented “Dynamic Safety Contracts” approach enables a systematic composition of available services at runtime to extend or reduce allowed degrees of freedom for a system involved in a dynamic collaboration scenario.


Collaborative systems Emergent behavior Dynamic safety contracts Safety Certification Distributed embedded systems Dynamic environment Runtime adaptation Condition monitoring Open and adaptive systems 


  1. 1.
    Müller, S., Liggesmeyer, P.: Dynamic safety contracts for functional cooperation of automotive systems. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 171–182. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller, S., Liggesmeyer, P.: Safety assurance for emergent collaboration of open distributed systems. In: Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 249–256. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider, D., Becker, M., Trapp, M.: Approaching runtime trust assurance in open adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-managing Systems, pp. 196–201. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rushby, J.: Trustworthy self-integrating systems. In: Bjørner, N., Prasad, S., Parida, L. (eds.) ICDCIT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9581, pp. 19–29. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28034-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warg, F., Gassilewski, M., Tryggvesson, J., Izosimov, V., Werneman, A., Johansson, R.: Defining autonomous functions using iterative hazard analysis and requirements refinement. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 286–297. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/CD26262. Road vehicles, functional safety part 6: Product development at the software level, part 10, guidelines (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Östberg, K., Bengtsson, M.: Run time safety analysis for automotive systems in an open and adaptive environment. In: SAFECOMP 2013-Workshop ASCoMS (Architecting Safety in Collaborative Mobile Systems) of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Priesterjahn, C., Heinzemann, C., Schäfer, W., Tichy, M.: Runtime safety analysis for safe reconfiguration. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp. 1092–1097. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reichardt, M., Föhst, T., Berns, K.: Introducing finroc: a convenient real-time framework for robotics based on a systematic design approach. Robotics Research Lab, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Technical report (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Proetzsch, M., Luksch, T., Berns, K.: Development of complex robotic systems using the behavior-based control architecture iB2C. Robot. Auton. Syst. 58(1), 46–67 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Software Engineering: DependabilityTechnische Universität KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations