Towards Team-Automata-Driven Object-Oriented Collaborative Work

Engels, Gregor; Groenewegen, Luuk

doi:10.1007/3-540-45711-9_15

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Automata including transitions with the same external action perform them simultaneously. The idea is adopted in [23] where Team-Automata are structured in an object-oriented way. Its synchronization mechanisms are based on events.…”

Section: 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Data-Driven Modeling and Coordination of Large Process Structures

Müller

Reichert

Herbst

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the engineering domain, the development of complex products (e.g., cars) necessitates the coordination of thousands of (sub-)processes. One of the biggest challenges for process management systems is to support the modeling, monitoring and maintenance of the many interdependencies between these sub-processes. The resulting process structures are large and can be characterized by a strong relationship with the assembly of the product; i.e., the sub-processes to be coordinated can be related to the dierent product components. So far, sub-process coordination has been mainly accomplished manually, resulting in high eorts and inconsistencies. IT support is required to utilize the information about the product and its structure for deriving, coordinating and maintaining such data-driven process structures. In this paper, we introduce the COREPRO framework for the data-driven modeling of large process structures. The approach reduces modeling eorts signicantly and provides mechanisms for maintaining data-driven process structures.

show abstract

Section: 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Data-Driven Modeling and Coordination of Large Process Structures

Müller

Reichert

Herbst

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a phenomenon known as 'state-sharing' (cf. [8,23]). It allows CA to influence potential synchronisations through their local states without participating in the actual transition.…”

Section: Definition 8 (Compliance)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Beek

Hennicker

Kleijn

2020

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study guarantees for safe communication in systems of systems composed of reactive components that communicate through synchronised execution of common actions. Systems are modelled as (extended) team automata, in which, in principle, any number of component automata can participate in the execution of a communicating action, either as a sender or as a receiver. We extend team automata with synchronisation type specifications, which determine specific synchronisation policies fine-tuned for particular application domains. On the other hand, synchronisation type specifications generate communication requirements for receptiveness and responsiveness. We propose a new, liberal version of requirement satisfaction which allows teams to execute arbitrary intermediate actions before being ready for the required communication, which is important in practice. Then we turn to the composition of systems and show that composition behaves well with respect to synchronisation type specifications. As a central result, we investigate criteria that ensure the preservation of local communication properties when (extended) team automata are composed. This is particularly challenging in the context of weak requirement satisfaction. This apparently simple generalisation has a significant consequence: among the 'arbitrary other actions' there may be output or input actions open to the environment. This is a potentially dangerous situation, since in this case local communication properties can be violated after composition with other teams. This leads us to the third, perhaps most important, contribution of the current paper. We consider composition of systems and of teams. First, we show that composition behaves well with synchronisation types (Theorem 1). Then we investigate conditions under which communication properties are preserved by ETA composition. The principle idea is that for this it should be sufficient to consider interface actions and to check (global) compliance conditions for them. We formulate appropriate conditions, first for the case of (strong) receptiveness and responsiveness (Theorem 2) and then for the weak variant of the two, solving the problem sketched above (Theorem 3). An intuitive running example guides the reader through the paper. Outline After introducing extended team automata (ETA) in Section 2, we consider synchronisation type specifications and ETA determined by them in Section 3. (Weak) compliance of ETA with communication requirements and safe communication are treated in Section 4. In Section 5, we define the composition of systems and of teams, and we show that this works well with synchronisation type specifications. In Section 6, we provide our main compositionality results. Full proofs and some insightful counterexamples of the results presented in the latter two sections can be found in Appendices A and B. After discussing related work in Section 7, we conclude the paper in Section 8.

show abstract

“…This phenomenon is known as 'state-sharing' (cf. [6,23]) and allows components to influence potential synchronisations through their local states without being involved in the actual transition.…”

Section: Communication Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication Requirements for Team Automata

Beek

Carmona

Hennicker

et al. 2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compatibility of components is an important issue in the quest for systems of systems that guarantee successful communications, free from message loss and indefinite waiting for inputs. In this paper, we investigate compatibility in the context of systems consisting of reactive components which may communicate through the synchronised execution of common actions. We model such systems in the team automata framework, which does not impose any a priori restrictions on the synchronisation policy followed to combine the components. We identify a family of representative synchronisation types based on the number of sending and receiving components participating in synchronisations. Then, we provide a generic procedure to derive, for each synchronisation type, requirements for receptiveness and for responsiveness of team automata that prevent that outputs are not accepted and inputs are not provided, respectively. Due to the genericity of our approach w.r.t. synchronisation policies, we can capture compatibility notions for various multi-component system models known from the literature.

show abstract

Towards Team-Automata-Driven Object-Oriented Collaborative Work

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Data-Driven Modeling and Coordination of Large Process Structures

Data-Driven Modeling and Coordination of Large Process Structures

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Communication Requirements for Team Automata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About