Advertisement

A Straightforward Algorithm to Transform Robot Control State Machines into Verifiable Lotos Specifications

  • Reza Babaee
  • Seyed Morteza Babamir
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 122)

Abstract

Formal methods have exhibited as a promising technique that provides verifiable specifications for highly reliable software. However from the practical robotics perspective, formal methods remain unaccustomed among real-world robotic control software projects. The underlying reason is the unreasonable fear in working with purely theoretical foundations of formal methods and as a consequence many of their remarkable abilities are often ignored.

We try to establish a particular relationship between a particular form of State Machines as the prevalent modeling language applied in many robotic control software industries on one side, and the formal Lotos specification language as the general specifying language for open distributed systems, on the other side. We present a quite straightforward algorithm to transform refined state machines into Basic Lotos Specifications so that it can be further implemented as a program to mechanize the transformation process.

Keywords

State Machine Modeling Language Behavior Expression Composite State Robot Controller 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language User Guide. The (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series). Addison-Wesley Professiona (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the iso specification language lotos. Computer Networks and ISDN systems 14, 25–59 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    (OMG), OMG: Unified modeling language: Superstructure (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrig, H., Fey, W., Hansen, H.: Act one an algebraic specification language with two levels of semantics (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Logrippo, L., Faci, M., Haj-Hussein, M.: An introduction to lotos: learning by examples. Computer Networks and ISDN systems 23, 325–342 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewerentz, C., Lindner, T.: Case study production cell: A comparative study in formal specification and verification. In: KORSO: Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software, pp. 388–416 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miles, R., Hamilton, K.: Learning UML 2.0. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chimisliu, V., Schwarzl, C., Peischl, B.: From uml statecharts to lotos: A semantics preserving model transformation (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mrowka, R., Szmuc, T.: Uml statecharts compositional semantics in lotos. In: ISPDC 2008, pp. 459–463 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H., Hautbois, R.: An experiment with the lotos formal description technique on the flight warning computer of airbus 330/340 aircrafts. In: First AMAST International Workshop on Real-Time Systems, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, p. 20 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Babaee
    • 1
  • Seyed Morteza Babamir
    • 1
  1. 1.University of KashanKashanIran

Personalised recommendations