Advertisement

Timed and Hybrid Statecharts and their textual representation

  • Y. Kesten
  • A. Pnueli
Supplement
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 571)

Abstract

A structured operational semantics is presented for Timed and Hybrid Statecharts, which are generalizations of the visual specification language of Statecharts intended to model real-time and hybrid systems. In order to study some of the basic features of Statecharts and the extensions necessary to treat real-time and continuous behaviors without being distracted by the graphical representation, we introduce a concurrent real-time language that can be viewed as a textual representation of Statecharts.

The language contains statements for delays, preemption, and timeouts. A structured operational semantics of the language and an illustrative example of its use for specification are presented. Extensions to the specification of hybrid systems are obtained by allowing a differential equation as a statement of the extended language. Structured operational semantics is also given for the hybrid version.

The same extensions are then applied to the visual Statechart language, and similar compositional semantics are defined.

Keywords

Real-time timed transitions system hybrid systems Statecharts structured operational semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ACD90]
    R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, and D.L. Dill. Model-checking for real-time systems. In Proc. 5th IEEE Symp. Logic in Comp. Sci., 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [AL91]
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport. An old-fashioned recipe for real time. In Real-Time: Theory in Practice. Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [DH89]
    D. Drusinsky and D. Harel. On the power of bounded concurrency I: The finite automata level. submitted, 1989. (Preliminary version appeared as “On the Power of Cooperative Concurrency”, in Proc. Intl. Conf. on Concurrency, Concurrency 88, Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci. 335, Springer, 1988, pp. 74–103).Google Scholar
  4. [Har87]
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comp. Prog., 8:231–274, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [Har89]
    D. Harel. A thesis for bounded concurrency. In Proc. 14th Symp. Math. Found. Comput. Sci., pages 35–48. Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci. 379, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [HGdR88]
    C. Huizing, R. Gerth, and W.P. de Roever. Modelling statecharts behaviour in a fully abstract way. In Proc. 13th CAAP, pages 271–294. Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 299, Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [HH90]
    T. Hirst and D. Harel. On the power of bounded concurrency II: The pushdown automata level. In Proc. 15th Coll. Trees in Algebra and Programming. Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [HK89]
    D. Harel and H.A. Kahana. On statecharts with overlapping. Technical report, The Weizmann Institute, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [HLN+90]
    D. Harel, H. Lachover, A. Naamad, A. Pnueli, M. Politi, R. Sherman, A. Shtull-Trauring, and M. Trakhtenbrot. Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Trans. Software Engin., 16:403–414, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [HMP90]
    T. Henzinger, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. An interleaving model for real time. In 5th Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology, pages 717–730, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [HMP91]
    T. Henzinger, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. Temporal proof methodologies for real-time systems. In Proc. 18th ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Lang., pages 353–366, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [HP85]
    D. Harel and A. Pnueli. On the development of reactive systems. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 477–498. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [HPSS86]
    D. Harel, A. Pnueli, J.P. Schmidt, and R. Sherman. On the formal semantics of statecharts. In Proc. First IEEE Symp. Logic in Comp. Sci., pages 54–64, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. [Hui91]
    C. Huizing. Semantics of reactive systems: comparison and full abstraction. PhD thesis, Technical University Eindhoven, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [Mar90]
    F. Maraninchi. Argos: un langage graphique pour la conception, la description et la validation des systèmes réactifs. PhD thesis, University of Grenoble, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [Mar91]
    F. Maraninchi. Languages for reactive systems: a common framework for comparing statecharts and argos. Technical report, LGI-IMAG Grenoble, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [MMP92]
    O. Maler, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. A formal approach to hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the REX workshop “Real-Time: Theory in Practice”, LNCS. Springer Verlag, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [Plo81]
    G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Arhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. [PS89]
    A. Pnueli and M. Shalev. What is in a step? In J.W. Klop, J.-J.Ch. Meijer, and J.J.M.M. Rutten, editors, J. W. De Bakker, Liber Amicorum, pages 373–400. CWI, AMsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Kesten
    • 1
  • A. Pnueli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsWeizmann InstituteRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations