13 AutoFocus 3 - A Scientific Tool Prototype for Model-Based Development of Component-Based, Reactive, Distributed Systems

Hölzl, Florian; Feilkas, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16277-0_13

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Jung [25] focuses especially on the requirements analysis in interdisciplinary development environments using an iterative and development oriented method. Further examples include the approach from Reiss & Schuller [26], who propose a workflow-based approach for requirements engineering, or from Gürtler et al [27], who integrate the requirements analysis in the system conception phase using the example of a product-service-system.…”

Section: Requirements Management In Mechatronic Systems Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multi-disciplinary Modeling Technique for Requirements Management in Mechatronic Systems Engineering

Hackenberg

Richter

Zäh

2014

Procedia Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Requirements Management In Mechatronic Systems Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multi-disciplinary Modeling Technique for Requirements Management in Mechatronic Systems Engineering

Hackenberg

Richter

Zäh

2014

Procedia Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Corpus of Specifications Table IV lists the 12 specifications we used in our evaluation, which model a robot arm, a pump-station, and an avionics system, adapted from [1], [2], [10]. The first 4 specifications in the list are S1 and S2 from Sect.…”

Section: Implementation and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have performed an evaluation of our work using 12 synthetic and real-world views specifications, taken from [1], [2], [10]. The evaluation examines the C&C view core cost in computation time and its effectiveness in reducing the size of the specification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is My Component and Connector Views Specification Unsatisfiable?

Maoz

Pomerantz

Ringert

et al. 2017

2017 ACM/IEEE 20th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Component and connector (C&C) views specifications, with corresponding verification and synthesis techniques, have been recently suggested as a means for formal yet intuitive structural specification of component and connector models. One challenge for effective use of C&C views synthesis relates to the case where the specification is unsatisfiable.In this work we present an approach to deal with unsatisfiable C&C views specifications. First, we define a notion of a C&C views specification core, a locally minimal unsatisfiable subset of the views specification. Second, based on the core, we generate explicit, concrete, structured natural-language report, which explains the cause of unsatisfiability. Finally, we extend our work to support specifications with architecture styles, library components, and Boolean formulas beyond simple conjunctions.Our views core computation relies on a new translation to SAT, via Alloy, which is refined enough to allow the extraction of detailed explanations. We implemented our work and evaluated it using 12 synthetic and real-world C&C views specifications. The evaluation examines the cost of the core computation and its effectiveness in reducing the size of the specification.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, SysML inherits the weaknesses of UML, with the most serious one for our setting being the loose formalism for nominal and error behavior modeling. In [49], the authors introduce a toolchain in order to model system software in a component-oriented manner, using the Focus language. Focus models can be formally verified based on a translation to Isabelle/HOL and are the basis for the generation of C code implementing their behaviour.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spacecraft early design validation using formal methods

Bozzano

Cimatti

Katoen

et al. 2014

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size and complexity of software in spacecraft is increasing exponentially, and this trend complicates its validation within the context of the overall spacecraft system. Current validation methods are labor-intensive as they rely on manual analysis, review and inspection. For future space missions, we developed -with challenging requirements from the European space industry -a novel modeling language and toolset for a (semi-)automated validation approach. Our modeling language is a dialect of AADL and enables engineers to express the system, the software, and their reliability aspects. The COMPASS toolset utilizes state-of-the-art model checking techniques, both qualitative and probabilistic, for the analysis of requirements related to functional correctness, safety, dependability and performance. Several pilot projects have been performed by industry, with two of them having focused on the system-level of a satellite platform in development. Our efforts resulted in a significant advancement of validating spacecraft designs from several perspectives, using a single integrated system model. The associated technology readiness level increased from level 1 (basic concepts and ideas) to early level 4 (laboratory-tested).

show abstract

13 AutoFocus 3 - A Scientific Tool Prototype for Model-Based Development of Component-Based, Reactive, Distributed Systems

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

A Multi-disciplinary Modeling Technique for Requirements Management in Mechatronic Systems Engineering

A Multi-disciplinary Modeling Technique for Requirements Management in Mechatronic Systems Engineering

Why is My Component and Connector Views Specification Unsatisfiable?

Spacecraft early design validation using formal methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About