Model-Driven Development of Safe Self-optimizing Mechatronic Systems with MechatronicUML

  • Holger Giese
  • Wilhelm Schäfer
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7740)

Abstract

Software is expected to become the dominant driver for innovation for the next generation of advanced distributed embedded real-time systems (advanced mechatronic systems). Software will build communities of autonomous agents at runtime which exploit local and global networking to enhance and optimize their functionality leading to self-adaptation or self-optimization. However, current development techniques are not capable of providing the safety guarantees required for this class of systems. Our approach, MechatronicUML, addresses the outlined challenge by proposing a coherent and integrated model-driven development approach which supports the modeling and verification of safety guarantees for systems with reconfiguration of software components at runtime. Modeling is based on a syntactically and semantically rigorously defined and partially refined subset of UML. Verification is based on a special type of decomposition and compositional model checking to make it scalable.

Keywords

Model Check Object Constraint Language Safety Property Mechatronic System Pattern Instance 
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 is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schäfer, W., Wehrheim, H.: The challenges of building advanced mechatronic systems. In: FOSE 2007: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pp. 72–84. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sztipanovits, J., Karsai, G., Bapty, T.: Self-adaptive software for signal processing. Commun. ACM 41(5), 66–73 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giese, H., Schäfer, W.: Model-driven development of safe self-optimizing mechatronic systems with mechatronic uml. Technical Report tr-ri-12-322, Software Engineering Group, Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany (2012), http://www.cs.uni-paderborn.de/uploads/tx_sibibtex/GS12.pdf
  4. 4.
    Burmester, S., Tichy, M., Giese, H.: Modeling Reconfigurable Mechatronic Systems with Mechatronic UML. In: Aßmann, U. (ed.) Proc. of Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications (MDAFA 2004), Linköping, Sweden, pp. 155–169 (June 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Tichy, M.: Model-Driven Development of Reconfigurable M. In: Aßmann, U., Aks̨it, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giese, H.: A Formal Calculus for the Compositional Pattern-Based Design of Correct Real-Time Systems. Technical Report tr-ri-03-240, Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn, Deutschland (July 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giese, H., Tichy, M., Burmester, S., Schäfer, W., Flake, S.: Towards the Compositional Verification of Real-Time UML Designs. In: Proc. of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference held Jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT international Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2011), pp. 38–47. ACM Press (September 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Oberschelp, O.: Hybrid UML Components for the Design of Complex Self-optimizing Mechatronic Systems. In: Araujo, H., Vieira, A., Braz, J., Encarnacao, B., Carvalho, M. (eds.) Proc. of 1st International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO 2004), Setubal, Portugal, pp. 222–229. INSTICC Press (August 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giese, H., Burmester, S., Schäfer, W., Oberschelp, O.: Modular Design and Verification of Component-Based Mechatronic Systems with Online-Reconfiguration. In: Roy, B., Meier, W. (eds.) FSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3017, pp. 179–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Oberschelp, O.: Hybrid UML Components for the Design of Complex Self-optimizing Mechatronic Systems. In: Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hestermeyer, T., Oberschelp, O., Giese, H.: Structured Information Processing For Self-optimizing Mechatronic Systems. In: Araujo, H., Vieira, A., Braz, J., Encarnacao, B., Carvalho, M. (eds.) Proc. of 1st International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO 2004), pp. 230–237. INSTICC Press, Setubal (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Self-managed systems: an architectural challenge. In: FOSE 2007: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pp. 259–268. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Münch, E., Oberschelp, O., Klein, F., Scheideler, P.: Tool Support for the Design of Self-Optimizing Mechatronic Multi-Agent Systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 10(3), 207–222 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Hirsch, M., Schilling, D.: Incremental design and formal verification with UML/RT in the FUJABA real-time tool suite. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Specification and Validation of UML Models for Real Time and Embedded Systems, SVERTS2004, Satellite Event of the 7th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, UML 2004, pp. 1–20 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Hirsch, M., Schilling, D., Tichy, M.: The Fujaba Real-Time Tool Suite: Model-Driven Development of Safety-Critical, Real-Time Systems. In: Proc. of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), St. Louis, Missouri, USA (May 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Schäfer, W.: Model-Driven Architecture for Hard Real-Time Systems: From Platform Independent Models to Code. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 25–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Gambuzza, A., Oberschelp, O.: Partitioning and Modular Code Synthesis for Reconfigurable Mechatronic Software Components. In: Bobeanu, C. (ed.) Proc. of European Simulation and Modelling Conference (ESMc 2004), Paris, France, pp. 66–73. EOROSIS Publications, Paris (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giese, H., Henkler, S., Hirsch, M.: A multi-paradigm approach supporting the modular execution of reconfigurable hybrid systems. Simulation 87(9), 775–808 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oberschelp, O., Gambuzza, A., Burmester, S., Giese, H.: Modular Generation and Simulation of Mechatronic Systems. In: Proc. of the 8th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, SCI, Orlando, USA (July 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heinzemann, C., Pohlmann, U., Rieke, J., Schäfer, W., Sudmann, O., Tichy, M.: Generating simulink and stateflow models from software specifications. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Design Conference, DESIGN 2012 (May 2012) (accepted)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giese, H., Burmester, S.: Real-Time Statechart Semantics. Technical Report tr-ri-03-239, Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany (June 2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H.: The Fujaba Real-Time Statechart PlugIn. In Giese, H., Zündorf, A., eds.: Proc. of the first International Fujaba Days 2003, Kassel, Germany. Volume tr-ri-04-247 of Technical Report., pp. 1–8. University of Paderborn (October 2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larsen, K., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL in a Nutshell. Springer International Journal of Software Tools for Technology 1(1) (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henzinger, T.A., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: What Good Are Digital Clocks? In: Kuich, W. (ed.) ICALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 545–558. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMG: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification. OMG Document ptc/02-03-02 (September 2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henzinger, T.A., Ho, P.H., Wong-Toi, H.: HyTech: The Next Generation. In: Proc. of the 16th IEEE Real-Time Symposium. IEEE Computer Press (December 1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bender, K., Broy, M., Peter, I., Pretschner, A., Stauner, T.: Model based development of hybrid systems. In: Modelling, Analysis, and Design of Hybrid Systems. LNCIS, vol. 279, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alur, R., Dang, T., Esposito, J., Fierro, R., Hur, Y., Ivancic, F., Kumar, V., Lee, I., Mishra, P., Pappas, G., Sokolsky, O.: Hierarchical Hybrid Modeling of Embedded Systems. In: First Workshop on Embedded Software (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lynch, N.A.: Input/Output Automata: Basic, Timed, Hybrid, Probabilistic, Dynamic,.. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 191–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flake, S., Mueller, W.: An OCL Extension for Real-Time Constraints. In: Clark, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Object Modeling with the OCL. LNCS, vol. 2263, pp. 150–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giese, H., Hirsch, M.: Modular Verification of Safe Online-Reconfiguration for Proactive Components in Mechatronic UML. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 67–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giese, H., Hirsch, M.: Modular Verification of Safe Online-Reconfiguration for Proactive Components in Mechatronic UML. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 67–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giese, H., Hirsch, M.: Checking and Automatic Abstraction for Timed and Hybrid Refinement in Mechtronic UML. Technical Report tr-ri-03-266, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany (December 2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Henzinger, T.A., Kopke, P.W., Puri, A., Varaiya, P.: What’s decidable about hybrid automata? Journal of Computer and System Sciences 57, 94–124 (1998); A preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of the 27th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 373–382. ACM Press (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    OMG: UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. Version 1.1 (June 2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: A dependability profile within MARTE. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(3), 313–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Object Management Group: Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Specification (January 2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The koala component model for consumer electronics software. Computer 33(3), 78–85 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Graf, S., Hooman, J.: Correct Development of Embedded Systems. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds.) EWSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3047, pp. 241–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stauner, T., Pretschner, A., Péter, I.: Approaching a Discrete-Continuous UML: Tool Support and Formalization. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 242–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stauner, T.: Systematic Development of Hybrid Systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Henzinger, T.A.: Masaccio: A Formal Model for Embedded Components. In: Watanabe, O., Hagiya, M., Ito, T., van Leeuwen, J., Mosses, P.D. (eds.) TCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1872, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Alur, R., Ivancic, F., Kim, J., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Generating embedded software from hierarchical hybrid models. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Language, Compiler, and Tool for Embedded Systems, pp. 171–182. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alur, R., Grosu, R., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Compositional Refinement of Hierarchical Hybrid Systems. In: Di Benedetto, M.D., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L. (eds.) HSCC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2034, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Giese, H., Henkler, S.: A survey of approaches for the visual model-driven development of next generation software-intensive systems. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 17, 528–550 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software. In: ICSE 2006: Proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 371–380. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Güdemann, M., Ortmeier, F., Reif, W.: Formal Modeling and Verification of Systems with Self-x Properties. In: Yang, L.T., Jin, H., Ma, J., Ungerer, T. (eds.) ATC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4158, pp. 38–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goldsby, H.J., Cheng, B., Zhang, J.: AMOEBA-RT: Run-Time Verification of Adaptive Software. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 212–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Giese
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Schäfer
    • 2
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute for Software Systems EngineeringUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Heinz Nixdorf InstituteUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations