Advertisement

Composition for Component-Based Modeling

  • Gregor Gössler
  • Joseph Sifakis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2852)

Abstract

Component-based engineering is of paramount importance for rigorous system design methodologies. It is founded on a paradigm which is common to all engineering disciplines: complex systems can be obtained by assembling components (building blocks). Components are usually characterized by abstractions that ignore implementation details and describe properties relevant to their composition e.g. transfer functions, interfaces. Composition is used to build complex components from simpler ones. It can be formalized as an operation that takes in components and their integration constraints. From these, it provides the description of a new, more complex component.

Keywords

Interaction Model Transition System Composition Operator Dependency Graph Mutual Exclusion 
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.
    Altisen, K., Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: Scheduler modeling based on the controller synthesis paradigm. Journal of Real-Time Systems, special issue on controltheoretical approaches to real-time computing 23(1/2), 55–84 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balarin, F., Lavagno, L., Passerone, C., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Sgroi, M., Watanabe, Y.: Modeling and Designing Heterogeneous Systems. In: Cortadella, J., Yakovlev, A., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Concurrency and Hardware Design. LNCS, vol. 2549, pp. 228–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benveniste, A., LeGuernic, P., Jacquemot, C.: Synchronous programming with events and relations: the SIGNAL language and its semantics. Science of Computer Programming 16, 103–149 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: Design, semantics, implementation. Science of Computer Programming 19(2), 87–152 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bornot, S., Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: On the construction of live timed systems. In: Schwartzbach, M.I., Graf, S. (eds.) TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, pp. 109–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bornot, S., Sifakis, J.: An algebraic framework for urgency. Information and Computation 163, 172–202 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface theories for component-based design. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 148–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Roever, W.-P., de Boer, F., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositonal and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.): COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG Working Group. Response to the omg rfp for schedulability, performance, and time. Technical Report ad/2001-06-14, OMG (June 2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halbwachs, N., Caspi, P., Raymond, P., Pilaud, D.: The synchronous dataflow programming language lustre. Proceedings of the IEEE 79(9), 1305–1320 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 231–274 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU-T. Recommendation Z.100. Specification and Design Language (SDL). Technical Report Z-100, International Telecommunication Union — Standardization Sector, Geneva (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems 5, 190–222 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, E.A., et al.: Overview of the Ptolemy project. Technical Report UCB/ERL M01/11, University of California at Berkeley (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maraninchi, F.: Operational and compositional semantics of synchronous automaton compositions. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R.: Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. Theoretical Computer Science 25(3), 267–310 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Gössler
    • 1
  • Joseph Sifakis
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Rhône-Alpes 
  2. 2.VERIMAG 

Personalised recommendations