The evolution of the design of complex systems leads to increasing complexity and requires the joint analysis and refinement of different views of the same system which generally consist of: (1) A functional view that describes the main features of the system; (2) An implementation view that allocates functions on system constituents; (3) A non-functional view ensuring that properties such as quality of services, real-time constraints… are satisfied by the system; (4) As well as a dysfunctional view that defines the reliability requirements. Despite the complexity of systems, the consistency of views when exploring the solution space must be ensured. For example: (1) A decision on the required availability may induce new functions or involve redundancy of function/constituent; (2) Another difficulty comes from the fact that the functions are being described using different formalisms, therefore the system engineer must always be able to handle all the following aspects: the availability or reliability models that are mainly based on probabilistic models, the functional view that can be expressed using finite state machines or by event models; the quality of the services that can be expressed either by using a probabilistic approach or an approach based on a bounded set… The work described in this paper focuses on the implementation of a unified industrial modeling process using the graphical language of Hi-Graphs, a specific class of hyper graphs, in support to SysML. This process brings in addition functional views, taking into account, at all stages of the life cycle, non-functional and dysfunctional views of the system in order to make the right choices / compromises in terms of both software engineering and formal verification. It provides end-to-end assurance that the system meets the requirements and contracts associated with service quality during the process of exploring and refining the solution among the different views of the system. It also offers multiple semantics so that existing modeling languages and tools are taken into account.
[1]
RamamrithamKrithi,et al.
What is predictability for real-time systems?
,
1990
.
[2]
Jim Steel,et al.
Transformation: The Missing Link of MDA
,
2002,
ICGT.
[3]
David Harel,et al.
Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems
,
1987,
Sci. Comput. Program..
[4]
Bruno Monsuez,et al.
Handling Complexity of a Model in System Design: Framework, Formalism and Metrics☆
,
2015
.
[5]
Marcus Raitner,et al.
Efficient visual navigation of hierarchically structured graphs
,
2006
.
[6]
Sol M. Shatz,et al.
Mapping UML Diagrams to a Petri Net Notation for System Simulation
,
2004,
SEKE.
[7]
Doron Drusinsky,et al.
Using statecharts for hardware description and synthesis
,
1989,
IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..
[8]
Shuzhen Yao,et al.
Consistency Checking of UML Dynamic Models Based on Petri Net Techniques
,
2006,
2006 15th International Conference on Computing.
[9]
Juan de Lara,et al.
Tools of model transformation by graph transformation: A comparative study
,
2012,
International Conference on Education and e-Learning Innovations.
[10]
H. Vangheluwe,et al.
An introduction to multi-paradigm modelling and simulation.
,
2002
.
[11]
Susanna Donatelli,et al.
From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models
,
2002,
WOSP '02.
[12]
David Harel,et al.
On the Algorithmics of Higraphs
,
1997
.
[13]
Pierre Verbaeten,et al.
Petri charts: an alternative technique for hierarchical net construction
,
1995,
1995 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century.
[14]
Patricio Letelier.
A Framework for Requirements Traceability in UML-based Projects
,
2002
.
[15]
Jean Bézivin,et al.
ATL: a QVT-like transformation language
,
2006,
OOPSLA '06.