A family of Domain-Specific Languages  for specifying Civilian Missions  of Multi-Robot Systems
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


A family of Domain-Specific Languages for specifying Civilian Missions of Multi-Robot Systems

Uploaded on

21st July 2014. My presentation at MORSE 2014 (http://st.inf.tu-dresden.de/MORSE14) about a family of Domain-Specific Languages for specifying Civilian Missions of Multi-Robot Systems.

21st July 2014. My presentation at MORSE 2014 (http://st.inf.tu-dresden.de/MORSE14) about a family of Domain-Specific Languages for specifying Civilian Missions of Multi-Robot Systems.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 124

http://www.ivanomalavolta.com 123
https://twitter.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Davide Di Ruscio Ivano Malavolta Patrizio Pelliccione A family of Domain-Specific Languages for specifying Civilian Missions of Multi-Robot Systems
  • 2. Roadmap Background Challenges The family of languages Application to autonomous quadrotors Conclusions and future work
  • 3. Civilian missions today •  High costs –  team training and transportation –  operating costs •  Safety –  significant risks (e.g., fire, earthquake, etc.) •  Timing and endurance –  exhausting shifts –  activities stopped at night
  • 4. Using robots for civilian missions [1] Many civilian missions can be executed either by flying, ground or water robots
  • 5. Multi-robots missions Civilian missions can be executed by multiple robots à lower mission completion time à fault-tolerance w.r.t. mission goal fulfillment à enables the use of highly-specialized robots All the robots perform their actions to fulfil the common goal of the mission however... common goal
  • 6. Challenges •  On-site operators must be expert of all the types of used robots –  in terms of dynamics, hardware capabilities, etc. •  On-site operators have to simultaneously control a large number of robots during the mission execution •  Robots provide very low-level APIs and very basic primitives –  error-prone development –  task-specific robots –  no reuse These issues ask for •  abstraction •  automation
  • 7. MDE for multi-robot missions MDE allows all stakeholders to focus on models of the mission with concepts that are: •  closer to the application domain •  independent from the specific robot technologies •  enabling automation à autonomous robots http://mdse-book.com
  • 8. Application scenario[2]
  • 9. The family of languages Mission Context Map MML BL Behavior BL models synthesis Robots configuration Mission Execution Engine RL
  • 10. Principles Mask complexity à usable by non-technical experts à domain-specific concepts Independence w.r.t. the types of robots Reuse of models Robots must be autonomous
  • 11. Monitoring mission language (MML) Mission layer: sequence of tasks executed by a swarm of robots extensible
  • 12. Monitoring mission language (MML) Context layer: geographical areas that can influence the execution of the mission The focus is on spatial context
  • 13. Robot language (RL) Hardware and low-level configuration of each type of robot
  • 14. Behaviour language (BL) Atomic movements and actions performed by each robot of the swarm
  • 15. Involved stakeholders Operator in-the-field stakeholder specifying the mission Robot engineer –  models a specific kind of robot –  develops the controller that instructs the robot on how to perform BL basic operations Platform extender –  extends the MML metamodel with new kinds of tasks –  develops a synthesizer for transforming each new task to its corresponding BL operations MML RL + controller MML + synthesizer
  • 16. Extension for autonomous quadrotors Special kind of helicopter with: •  high stability •  omni-directional •  smaller fixed-pitch rotors à safer than classical helicopters •  simple to design and construct •  relatively inexpensive image from http://goo.gl/FJFS5l Issues •  require a trained pilot to operate them •  restricted to line-of-sight range
  • 17. Languages extensions unchanged MML BL RL
  • 18. Example (1) MML model (in the tool) PG1 NF1 NF2 R1 home
  • 19. Example (2) Robot model (Parrot)
  • 20. Example (3) Behavioural model Drone& D1& Drone& D2& Drone& D3& Start&(ε,&ε)& Start&(ε,&ε)& Start&(ε,&ε)& TakeOff&(ε,&ε)& TakeOff&(ε,&ε)& TakeOff&(ε,&ε)& GoTo&(ε,&ε)&GoTo&(ε,&ε)& GoTo&(ε,&ε)& GoTo&(ε,&{Photo})&GoTo&(ε,&{Photo})& GoTo&(ε,&{Photo})& GoTo&(ε,{Photo,BroadCast(D3.R1.Done)})& GoTo&(ε,&ε)& Land&(ε,&ε)& Stop&(ε,&ε)& GoTo&(ε,&ε)& Land&(ε,&ε)& Stop&(ε,&ε)& 0GoTo&(ε,&{Photo,&& BroadCast&(D2.PG1.Done)})& 0 GoTo&(ε,&ε)& Land&(ε,&ε)& Stop&(ε,&ε)& GoTo(ε,&{Photo,&& BroadCast&(D1.PG1.Done)})& PG1 PG1 R1
  • 21. Tool support Editor for MML models M2M transformation + models validation Layer of controllers that interpret BL models at run-time HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript Java + OCL Java + ROS + Rosbridge Drone driver any
  • 22. Conclusions
  • 23. Future work Extend the languages with timing constraints Design a generic software architecture for –  mission editors, model transformations –  run-time engine for executing the mission Safety and security as first-class elements both at mission design-time and run-time A more systematic language extension mechanism (like in [3]) Exercise the family of languages with other kinds of robot (e.g., underwater missions)
  • 24. References [1] Skrzypietz, T.: Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Civilian Missions. BIGS policy paper. Brandenburgisches Institut fur Gesellschaft und Sicherheit. BIGS (2012) [2] Di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Pelliccione, P.: Engineering a platform for mission planning of autonomous and resilient quadrotors. In: Fifth International Workshop, on Software Engineering for Resilient Systems , Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2013) 33–47 [3] Di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Pierantonio, A.: Developing Next Generation ADLs Through MDE Techniques. In: Procs. ICSE’10, ACM (2010) 85–94
  • 25. + 39 380 70 21 600 Ivano Malavolta | Gran Sasso Science Institute iivanoo ivano.malavolta@gssi.infn.it www.di.univaq.it/malavolta Contact