MARTE vs. AADL for Discrete-Event and Discrete-Time Domains

  • Frédéric Mallet
  • Robert de Simone
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 36)


Real-time embedded applications tend to combine periodic and aperiodic computations. Modeling standards must then support both discrete-time and discrete-event models of computation and communication whereas they historically pertain to two different communities: asynchronous and synchronous designers. In this article, two emerging standards of the domain (MARTE and AADL) are compared and their ability to tackle this issue is assessed. We plead for combining both standards and show how MARTE can be extended to integrate AADL features required for end-to-end flow latency analysis.


UML Marte AADL MoCC Time requirement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. André and F. Mallet. Clock constraints in UML MARTE CCSL. Research Report 6540, INRIA, May 2008.
  2. 2.
    C. André, F. Mallet, and R. de Simone. Modeling time(s). In MoDELS’07, LNCS 4735, pages 559–573. Springer, Berlin, 2007. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. André, F. Mallet, and R. de Simone. Modeling of AADL data-communications with UML Marte, In E. Villar, editor, Embedded Systems Specification and Design Languages, Selected Contributions from FDL’07, LNEE 10, pages 150–170. Springer, Berlin, 2008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Benveniste, P. Caspi, S. A. Edwards, N. Halbwachs, P. Le Guernic, and R. de Simone. The synchronous languages 12 years later. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1):64–83, 2003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Faugère, T. Bourbeau, R. de Simone, and S. Gérard. Marte: Also a UML profile for modeling AADL applications. In ICECCS, pages 359–364. IEEE Comput. Soc., Los Alamitos, 2007. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.H. Feiler and J. Hansson. Flow latency analysis with the architecture analysis and design language. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TN-010, CMU, June 2007. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEEE Standards Association. IEEE Standard for Verilog Hardware Description Language. IEEE Std 1364TM-2005, Design Automation Standards Committee, 2005. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.A. Lee and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Transactions on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 17(12):1217–1229, 1998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.-Y. Lee, F. Mallet, and R. de Simone. Dealing with AADL end-to-end flow latency with UML Marte. In ICECCS, pages 228–233. IEEE Comput. Soc., Los Alamitos, 2008. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Leen and D. Heffernan. TTCAN: a new time-triggered controller area network. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 26(2):77–94, 2002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Mallet, C. André, and R. de Simone. CCSL: specifying clock constraints with UML Marte. ISSE, 4(3):309–314, 2008. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SAE. Architecture analysis and design language (AADL). AS5506/1, 2006.
  13. 13.
    F. Singhoff and A. Plantec. AADL modeling and analysis of hierarchical schedulers. In A. Srivastava and L.C. Baird III, editors, SIGAda, pages 41–50. Assoc. Comput. Mach., New York, 2007. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The ProMARTE Consortium. UML profile for MARTE, beta 2. OMG document number: ptc/08-06-08, Object Management Group, 2008. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Weilkiens. Systems Engineering with SysML/UML: Modeling, Analysis, Design. The MK/OMG Press, Burlington, 2008. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aoste Project I3S-INRIA, INRIA Sophia Antipolis MéditerranéeUniversité de Nice Sophia AntipolisSophia Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations