Heterogeneous Modeling Support for Embedded Systems Design

  • Perry Alexander
  • Cindy Kong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2211)


Effective design of embedded computer systems requires considering information from multiple domains in a model-centered approach. Using a model-centered approach, the system designer defines and composes models representing multiple system perspectives throughout the design, implementation and testing process. Rosetta is a heterogeneous systems-level modeling language designed to support specification and analysis of complex, computer-based systems. Rosetta provides a model-centered specification capability that allows specifiers to define and combine system models. Users define models, called facets, and assemble those models to define components and systems using facet composition. Each facet model is written with reference to a domain that defines a vocabulary and semantics for the model definition. To model interaction between specifications from different domains, Rosetta provides an interaction definition mechanism based on institution theory. The Rosetta model-centered specification approach allows systems designers to specify many domains of interest from many perspectives and supports predictive design analysis at the systems-level.


Design Domain Institution Theory Hardware Description Language Constraint Domain System Level Design 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J. T. Buck, S. Ha, E. A. Lee, and D. G. Messerschmitt. Ptolemy: A framework for simulating and prototyping heterogeneous systems. Int. Journal of Computer Simulation, 4:155–182, April 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Easterbrook. Domain modeling with hieararchies of alternative viewpoints. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Requiremetns Engineering (RE-93), San Diego, CA, January 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Easterbrook and B. Nuseibeh. Managing inconsistencies in evolving specifications. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE-95), pages 48–55, York, UK, April 1995. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specifications 1: Equationsand Initial Semantics. EATCSMongraphs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Feather. The evolution of composite specifications. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Monterey, CA, April 1987. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Fickas and P. Nagarajan. Being suspious: Critiquing problem specifications. In Proceedings of The Seventh Conference on Artificial Inteligence AAAI 88, S t. Paul, MN, July 1988. AAAI.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Goguen. Parameterized Programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(5):528–543, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Eric C. R. Hehner. A Practical Theory of Programming. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Hudak. The Haskell School of Expression. Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Kumar, R. Klenke, J. Aylor, B. Johnson, R. Williams, and R. Waxman. Adept: A unified system level modeling design environment. In Proceedings of The First Annual RASSP Conference, pages 114–123, Arlington, VA, August 1994. DARPA.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Misra, G. Karsai, J. Sztipanovits, A. Ledeczi, and M. Moore. A modelintegrated infomration system for increasing throughput in discrete manufacturing. In Proceedings of The 1997Conference and Workshop on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, pages 203–210, Montery, CA, March 1997. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Owre, N. Shankar, J. Rushby, and Stringer-Calvert D. W. J. PVS System Guide. SRI International Computer Science Laboratory, 333 Ravenswood Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025, 2.3 edition, September 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Schulz, J. Rozenblit, M. Mrva, and K. Buchenrieder. Model-based codesign. IEEE Computer, 31(8):60–67, August 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Douglas R. Smith. KIDS: A Semiautomatic Program Development System. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(9):1024–1043, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Perry Alexander
    • 1
  • Cindy Kong
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Telecommunications Technology CenterThe University of KansasLawrence

Personalised recommendations