Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition

294

Published on

Presentation at the 2nd International Workshop on Model-driven Approaches for Simulation Engineering …

Presentation at the 2nd International Workshop on Model-driven Approaches for Simulation Engineering

(held within the SCS/IEEE Symposium on Theory of Modeling and Simulation part of SpringSim 2012)

Please see: http://www.sel.uniroma2.it/mod4sim12/ for further details

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
294
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ModelicaML Value Bindings for AutomatedModel CompositionWladimir Schamai (EADS Innovation Works, Germany)Philipp Helle (EADS Innovation Works, Germany)Peter Fritzson (Linköping University, Sweden)Chris Paredis (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA)
  • 2. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionTable of Contents• Introduction• Challenge• Value Bindings Concept and Example• Using Value Bindings for Models Composition• ConclusionPage 2
  • 3. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionIntroduction: ModelicaML• ModelicaML integrates a subset of the UML and the Modelica language in order to leverage standardized graphical notations of UML for system modeling and the simulation power of Modelica• ModelicaML enables engineers to describe • System requirements • System design (structure and behavior) • Usage-, test scenarios • vVDR (Virtual Verification of Designs against Requirements) is a method that enables a model-based design verification against requirements • vVDR is supported in ModelicaMLPage 3 03/05/2012
  • 4. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionIntroduction: vVDR Method Actor Task Created Artifact Formalize RMM Requirement Requirements Monitor Models Designs Formalize Designs DAM Alternative Models Formalize SM Scenario Models Scenarios Goal: Enable on-demand * Create Verification VM Verification Models verification of designs AUTOMATED Models against requirements using automated model AUTOMATED Execute and Reports composition at any time Create Report during development. Focus of this Analyze Results presentationPage 4 03/05/2012
  • 5. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionChallengeWe want to verify different design alternatives against sets of requirements usingdifferent scenarios. Questions:1) How to find valid combinations of design alternatives, scenarios and requirements inorder to enable an automated composition of verification models?2) Having found a valid combination: How to bind all components correctly? Designs Alternative Models Scenario Models Requirement Models … DAM RMM RMM SM SM 1 RMM DAM RMM RMM SM SM RMM DAM RMM SM RMM SM RMM * Create Verification SM Models 1. Verification VM … Model DAM SM RMM 2. Verification Model VM … … … n. Verification … ModelPage 5
  • 6. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionSolution Proposal: Value Bindings• Value Binding enables the automation of c Clients verification model composition M Mediators p Providers• Value Bindings include the definition of: – Client (component that requires data from other components) Requirement Design Monitor Alternative – Provider (component that provides data for Models Model other components) DAM – Mediator (mediates between clients and RMM c c providers) M p VM c p c p• Depending on which mediators and SM Verification ORM Model providers are in place we can: Scenario Other • Determine which clients can be satisfied Model Required • Find valid combinations and generate Models verification models • Generate binding code for clientPage 6 components in verification models
  • 7. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample: Design Alternative ModelSimplified Aircraft Potable Water System - Overhead tank system that can be filled using a liquid source from bottom with the aircraft on ground. - Controller monitors the level of liquid and controls the valves according to its mode (e.g. “fill”-, “drain”-, “pre-selected value fill”- mode). Liquid out Liquid in (from liquid source)Page 7
  • 8. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample: Requirement Monitor Model”The time to fill an empty tank shall be 300 sec. max.” Clients to get input values from design model providers“status” is set by the violation monitor andindicates the following: 0 = not evaluated 1 = evaluated and not violated 2 = violatedPage 8
  • 9. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample: Design Alternative Model Provider for requirements Clients to get input values from scenariosPage 9
  • 10. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample: Scenario Model “Filling and draining the tank” Providers for design model clients Action code: mode := 1; // fill mode preselectedLevel := 1; pumpPowerFactor := 1; Example scenario: Tank cleaning by filling and draining the tank several times when the aircraft is on ground.Page 10
  • 11. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample: Mapping Scenarios to RequirementsEngineer (e.g. tester) has to define which scenarios are appropriate to verify whichrequirements?• One scenario can be used to verify multiple requirements (to increase requirements coverage and confidence in verification results)• Each requirement should be referenced by at least one scenario These relations are defined manually (could be automated in the future)Page 11
  • 12. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionVerification Model Composition in ModelicaML:Finding Valid Combinations - Goal• Value Bindings are used to determine valid combinations as follows: – Select a design alternative • Find combinations consisting of – 1 scenario that can stimulate this design model and – n requirements that are implemented in the design, and can be verified using this scenario.• Each combination is used to generate one verification model.Page 12 03/05/2012
  • 13. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Verification Model Composition in ModelicaML: Finding Valid Combinations - Algorithm Combinations DAM DAM Select Design Alternative * Abort if no scenario Analyze (Next) ScenarioMore scenarios N Y ? ? Select Scenario SM SM … else * Next scenario if no requirement Clients of design alternative satisfied Analyze (Next) Requirement by providers from scenario? More req. N Y else ? ? Select Requirement RMM RMM … More requirements ? Requirement is referenced by scenario else and requirement clients satisfied by providers from design alternative? Create Combination VM VM … (i.e. Create Verification Model) Page 13 03/05/2012
  • 14. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionAutomatic Binding Code Generation in ModelicaMLValue Bindings are used to automatically generate binding code for all clients in theverification model (i.e. a combination of design model, scenario and a set of requirements):Verification Model Provider from Design Model design model Scenario Model Binding Requirement Models Client from requirement modelExample: Binding code for the client tankIsEmpty of the requirement req_001_...:tankIsEmpty = sm_spws_environment.spws.tank.level < 0.001Page 14
  • 15. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionSimulation and Report Generation in ModelicaMLVerification models are simulated.The generated VerificationReport is a prepared summary of:• Configuration, bindings• Violations of requirements• etc.Page 15
  • 16. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionConclusion• The ModelicaML Value Bindings approach enables automated model composition, which is used in ModelicaML for automatic generate verification models• Bindings do not modify client or provider models (important when libraries are used)• Using binding definitions we can find valid combinations and generate verification models• The binding code can be generated for all client components automatically• The generated verification models become artifacts that are created automatically on- demand and do not need to be maintainedPage 16
  • 17. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionThank you for your attention!Wladimir SchamaiEADS Innovation Works (Germany)wladimir.schamai@eads.netPeter FritzsonLinköping University (Sweden)petfr@ida.liu.sePage 17
  • 18. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition ADDITIONAL SLIDESPage 18 03/05/2012
  • 19. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionvVDR Method Steps Explanation1. Formalize Requirements: This step explains how select and formalize requirements for the design verification purpose.2. Formalize Designs (Select or Create Design Model to be Verified against Requirements ): This step clarifies what properties a system design model needs to have for being suitable for this method.3. Formalize (Verification) Scenarios: This step describes what the properties of a verification scenario are.4. Create Verification Models: This step explains what a verification model consists of.5. Execute Verification Models and Create Report: This step imposes requirements on the simulation output.6. Analyze Results: This step provides guidance for analyzing possible causes of inconsistencies found in the simulation results.Page 19
  • 20. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionVerification Artifacts Traceability in ModelicaMLThe same algorithm for finding valid combination is used to infer the traceability betweenrequirements, scenarios and design alternatives:• Requirements view shows which requirements are implemented and can be tested using which scenarios• Scenarios view shows scenarios that are appropriate for a design alternative and all requirements can be verified using this scenario• For each combination a verification model can be generated on-demandPage 20
  • 21. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionExample of Value Bindings in ModelicaML With provider operation: “level < 0.001” in order to return a Boolean value.Page 21
  • 22. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionBinding Operations in ModelicaML : Client Operation• Used when a sub-component client shall be referenced explicitly• When a value manipulation or type conversion is required• For overwriting of binding definitions. Any upper binding definition in the components tree overwrites lower level bindings.Page 22
  • 23. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionBinding Operations in ModelicaML : Mediator Operation• Built-in functions for taking the minimum or the maximum value, sum values, build a product, or to use the logic operators such as AND, OR, or XOR.• These functions are only used if multiple providers are anticipated for this mediator.• In contrast, the function getSingleProvider() is used to ensure that there must be only one provider for this mediator.Page 23
  • 24. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model CompositionBinding Operations in ModelicaML : Provider Operation• Used for type conversion, • e.g., if client requires a different type compared to the provider type• Or when the actual provider is a sub-component, e.g.: • Requirement: When the system is not used (e.g. is not being filled, drained or is not supplying water to clients) all valves shall be fully closed.Provider Provider Operation with references to sub-componentsPage 24

×