Modelling Behaviour Requirements for Automatic Interpretation, Simulation and Deployment

  • David Billington
  • Vladimir Estivill-Castro
  • René Hexel
  • Andrew Rock
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6472)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a high level approach to capture the behaviour of an autonomous robotic or embedded system. Using requirements engineering, we construct models of the behaviour where system activities are captured mainly by collaborating state machines while the domain knowledge is captured by a non-monotonic logic. We explain our infrastructure that enables interpretation, simulation, automatic deployment, and testing of the models, minimising the need for developers to code. The approach also minimises faults introduced in the software development cycle and ensures a large part of the software is independent of the particular robotic platform.

Keywords

requirements engineering interpretation of models knowledge representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G.: The role of nonmonotonic representations in requirements engineering. Int. J. of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 8(3), 385–399 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billington, D.: The proof algorithms of plausible logic form a hierarchy. In: Zhang, S., Jarvis, R.A. (eds.) AI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3809, pp. 796–799. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billington, D., Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rock, A.: Architecture for hybrid robotic behavior. In: Corchado, E., Wu, X., Oja, E., Herrero, Á., Baruque, B. (eds.) HAIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5572, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, D., Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rock, A.: Plausible logic facilitates engineering the behavior of autonomous robots. In: Fox, R., Golubski, W. (eds.) IASTED Conf. on Software Engineering (SE 2010), Anaheim, California, USA, February 16 - 18, pp. 41–48. IASTED, ACTA Press, Innsbruck, Austria (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billington, D., Rock, A.: Propositional plausible logic: Introduction and implementation. Studia Logica 67, 243–269 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bochmann, C.V., Sunshine, C.A.: Formal methods in communication protocol design. IEEE Transaction on Communications 28(4), 624–631 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks, R.A.: How to build complete creatures rather than isolated cognitive simulators. In: VanLehn, K. (ed.) Architectures for Intelligence, pp. 225–239. Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates, Hillsdale (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks, R.A.: Intelligence without reason. In: Myopoulos, R., Reiter, R. (eds.) Proc. 12th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ICJAI 1991, San Mateo, CA, pp. 569–595. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Sydney (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dromey, R.G., Powell, D.: Early requirements defect detection. TickIT Journal 4Q05, 3–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis, C.: Team automata for groupware systems. In: GROUP 1997: Proc. of the Int. ACM SIGGROUP Conf. on Supporting group work, pp. 415–424. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lötzsch, M., Bach, J., Burkhard, H.-D., Jüngel, M.: Designing agent behavior with the extensible agent behavior specification language XABSL. In: Polani, D., Browning, B., Bonarini, A., Yoshida, K. (eds.) RoboCup 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3020, pp. 114–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mellor, S.J.: Embedded systems in UML. OMG White paper label: We can generate Systems Today (2007), http://www.omg.org/news/whitepapers/
  14. 14.
    Myers, T., Dromey, R.G.: From requirements to embedded software - formalising the key steps. In: 20th Australian Software Engineering Conf (ASWEC), Gold Cost, Australia, April 14-17, pp. 23–33. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rock, A., Billington, D.: An implementation of propositional plausible logic. In: Edwards, J. (ed.) 23rd Australasian Computer Science Conf., Canberra. Australian Computer Science Communications, vol. 22(1), pp. 204–210. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos (January 2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rock, A.: The DPL (decisive Plausible Logic) tool. Technical report (continually) (in preparation), http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~arock/
  17. 17.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M.R., Lorensen, W., Eddy, F., Premerlani, W.: Object-Oriented Modelling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samek, M.: Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++: Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Sytesms, 2nd edn., Newnes (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shlaer, S., Mellor, S.J.: Object lifecycles: modeling the world in states. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ter Beek, M.H., Ellis, C.A., Kleijn, J., Rozenberg, G.: Synchronizations in team automata for groupware systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12(1), 21–69 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner, F., Schmuki, R., Wagner, T., Wolstenholme, P.: Modeling Software with Finite State Machines: A Practical Approach. CRC Press, NY (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wen, L., Colvin, R., Lin, K., Seagrott, J., Yatapanage, N., Dromey, R.G.: “Integrare”, a collaborative environment for behavior-oriented design. In: Luo, Y. (ed.) CDVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4674, pp. 122–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wen, L., Dromey, R.G.: From requirements change to design change: A formal path. In: 2nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2004), Beijing, China, September 28-30, pp. 104–113. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wen, L., Kirk, D., Dromey, R.G.: A tool to visualize behavior and design evolution. In: Di Penta, M., Lanza, M. (eds.) 9th Int. Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE 2007), in Conjunction with the 6th ESEC/FSE Joint Meeting, Dubrovnik, Croatia, September 3-4, pp. 114–115. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Billington
    • 1
  • Vladimir Estivill-Castro
    • 1
  • René Hexel
    • 1
  • Andrew Rock
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations