Advertisement

Multiple Viewpoint Contract-Based Specification and Design

  • Albert Benveniste
  • Benoît Caillaud
  • Alberto Ferrari
  • Leonardo Mangeruca
  • Roberto Passerone
  • Christos Sofronis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5382)

Abstract

We present the mathematical foundations and the design methodology of the contract-based model developed in the framework of the SPEEDS project. SPEEDS aims at developing methods and tools to support “speculative design”, a design methodology in which distributed designers develop different aspects of the overall system, in a concurrent but controlled way. Our generic mathematical model of contract supports this style of development. This is achieved by focusing on behaviors, by supporting the notion of “rich component” where diverse (functional and non-functional) aspects of the system can be considered and combined, by representing rich components via their set of associated contracts, and by formalizing the whole process of component composition.

Keywords

Parallel Composition Design Step Hybrid Automaton Contract Obligation Engine Control Unit 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Damm, W.: Embedded system development for automotive applications: trends and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM & IEEE International conference on Embedded software (EMSOFT 2006), Seoul, Korea, October 22–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butz, H.: The Airbus approach to open Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA): technology, functions, industrial processes and future development road map. In: International Workshop on Aircraft System Technologies, Hamburg (March 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Reasoning about the trends and challenges of system level design. Proc. of the IEEE  95(3), 467–506 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damm, W.: Controlling speculative design processes using rich component models. In: Fifth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2005), St. Malo, France, June 6–9, pp. 118–119 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, B.: Applying ”design by contract”. IEEE Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Communications of the ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamport, L.: win and sin: Predicate transformers for concurrency. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 12(3), 396–428 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Back, R.J., von Wright, J.: Contracts, games, and refinement. Information and communication 156, 25–45 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Back, R.J., von Wright, J.: Refinement Calculus: A systematic Introduction. Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dill, D.L.: Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-Independent Circuits. ACM Distinguished Dissertations. MIT Press (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf, E.S.: Hierarchical Models of Synchronous Circuits for Formal Verification and Substitution. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University (October 1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 109–120. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chakrabarti, A., de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Stoelinga, M.: Resource interfaces. In: Alur, R., Lee, I. (eds.) EMSOFT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2855, pp. 117–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Permissive interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2005), pp. 31–40. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Negulescu, R.: Process spaces. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Passerone, R.: Semantic Foundations for Heterogeneous Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (May 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burch, J., Passerone, R., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Overcoming heterophobia: Modeling concurrency in heterogeneous systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, June 25–29 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engelfriet, J.: Determinacy → (observation equivalence = trace equivalence). Theoretical Computer Science 36, 21–25 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brookes, S.D.: On the relationship of CCS and CSP. In: Díaz, J. (ed.) ICALP 1983. LNCS. vol. 154. Springer, Heidelberg (1983)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, E.A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Transactions on Computer Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 17(12), 1217–1229 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Benveniste
    • 1
  • Benoît Caillaud
    • 1
  • Alberto Ferrari
    • 2
  • Leonardo Mangeruca
    • 2
  • Roberto Passerone
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christos Sofronis
    • 2
  1. 1.IRISA / INRIARennesFrance
  2. 2.PARADES GEIERomeItaly
  3. 3.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations