07101 Abstracts Collection -- Quantitative Aspects of Embedded Systems

From March 5 to March 9, 2007, the Dagstuhl Seminar 07101 ``Quantitative Aspects of Embedded Systems\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Towards a framework for multiparadigm multimethodologies in systems thinking and practice

Burrell and Morgan (2000) claimed that knowledge is paradigmatic, encompassing a distinct worldview and rationality governing research strategies and methods for which they identified four sociological paradigms to locate them based on “metatheoretical assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and human behavior” (Cunliffe, 2010). They regard the competing theories developed from different paradigms as incommensurable—those working in one paradigm are not understood by those committed to another. Moreover, “there can be no measure, outside of the paradigms, which can be used as a basis for comparing and adjudicating between the claims toknowledge of theories produced from within different paradigms” (Jackson, 2000).This new theory states that because the problem of paradigm incommensurability begins at the level of ontology the solution lies there as well. Rather than supporting just one or a few paradigms, a different type of ontology is needed to explain ontological variety. It is argued that we can only perceive reality as meaningful paradigmatically, just as in the metaphor of the blind men and the elephant (Saxe, ca. 1850) where each comes upon a different part of an elephant andgeneralises that the whole is like their one piece. Furthermore, they cannot understand what they have found by comparing experiences.Solving the incommensurability issue is the theoretical key needed to properly underpin pluralist approaches to systems theory, design and intervention. But to do so, this new ontology is placed so that it operates within a suitable and otherwise complete theoretical framework which does not circumscribe, subsume, or in any way alter existing approaches, paradigms and theories—it purpose is only to sanction their use in a pluralist systemic approach. Such a framework, calledP–S Multiparadigm Perspectivity is described in this thesis.Ten interviews with systemists were conducted with mixed results. The tests mistakenly assumed that systemists were generally aware of paradigms and incommensurability—instead, an aversion to theory was discovered. Surprisingly, though, two methods to address the issue were also found in the data. One of the interviewees teaches theory through storytelling; another demonstrates methods first, to pique the learner’s interest and evoke their questions. It was learned that the adoption of this theory depends upon an improved awareness of the concepts of critical systems paradigms within the systemist community

Proceedings of the Resolve Workshop 2006

The aim of the RESOLVE Workshop 2006 was to bring together researchers and educators interested in: Refining formal approaches to software engineering, especially component-based systems, and introducing them into the classroom. The workshop served as a forum for participants to present and discuss recent advances, trends, and concerns in these areas, as well as formulate a common understanding of emerging research issues and possible solution paths

Classification of Language Interactions

Context: the presence of several languages interacting each other within the same project is an almost universal feature in software development. Earlier work shows that this interaction might be source of problems. Goal: we aim at identifying and characterizing the cross-language interactions at semantic level.% among artifacts written in different languages. Method: we took the commits of an open source project and analyzed the cross-language pairs of files occurring in the same commit to identify possible semantic interactions. We both defined a taxonomy and applied it. Result: we identify 6 categories of semantic interactions. The most common category is the one based on shared ids, the next is when an artifact provides a description of another artifact. Conclusions: the deeper knowledge of cross-language interactions represents the basis for implementing a tool supporting the management of this kind of interactions and the detection of related problems at compile time

Discrete Controller Design for A Hybrid Three Tank System

Systems in which the dynamical behaviour evolves based on the interaction between the continuous dynamics and the discrete dynamics, present in the system, are called hybrid systems. Traditionally such systems were analysed either as purely continuous or purely discrete systems. The interactions between discrete and continuous systems in today’s technological problems have become so important that hybrid modelling of such systems is called for. In this paper a discrete controller is designed for such a hybrid system. Hybrid modelling technique is used to model the hybrid three tank systems. The hybrid model is simulated in SIMULINK and STATEFLOW is used to design the discrete controller

LacEDAemon : a programming environment for the multiparadigm language leda

Multiparadigm programming languages are a recent development in the realm of programming languages. A multiparadigm programming language allows the use of multiple, differing programming paradigms without departing from a single, unified linguistic framework. Multiparadigm programming languages are claimed to have benefits to both pedagogy and complex application creation. The beneficial claims of multiparadigm languages have yet to be validated. The availability of a programming environment would encourage and expedite academic and industrial validation. Creating a programming environment is considered an extremely labor intensive activity. Further complications arise from the fact that programming environment creation is an experimental activity: the component mix that best expedites program development in a new programming language cannot be predicted in advance. As a result, few new languages are ever verified in the context of a supportive programming environment. Leda, a unique programming language that includes the functional, imperative, logic and object-oriented paradigms, is at this juncture. This thesis describes the structure of an environment framework that allows for experimental study of the necessary components of a multiparadigm programming language environment. New tools and techniques, as well as changes to traditional tools and techniques are required to allow programmers to abstract effectively across paradigms. This research examines the topic by creating LacEDAemon, a testbed programming environment for the multiparadigm programming language Leda, within the framework of a variety of integrated, cohesive tools. LacEDAemon relies on a hypertool-based toolkit integration framework architecture that affords both loose and tight control integration, as well as data integration, using existing, off-the-shelf tools written in a variety of programming languages. Along with demonstrating the viability of hypertool integration as a low-cost approach for constructing programming environments, LacEDAemon provides a vehicle for: determining an effective multiparadigm programming toolset, studying multiparadigm program design, conducting studies of multiparadigm program visualization, exploring different strategies for software reuse, and examining the merits of conducting all programming activity within the database-centered environment approach. This environment also provides support for investigations in the areas of multiparadigm algorithms, multiparadigm software metrics, and multiparadigm program comprehension. Various techniques for evaluating integrated environments are also applied to LacEDAemon

The design and implementation of a multiparadigm programming language.

by Chi-keung Luk.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1993.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 169-174).Preface --- p.xiChapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1Chapter 1.1 --- Programming Languages --- p.2Chapter 1.2 --- Programming Paradigms --- p.2Chapter 1.2.1 --- What is a programming paradigm --- p.2Chapter 1.2.2 --- Which came first? Languages or paradigms? --- p.2Chapter 1.2.3 --- Overview of some paradigms --- p.4Chapter 1.2.4 --- A spectrum of paradigms --- p.6Chapter 1.2.5 --- Mulitparadigm systems --- p.7Chapter 1.3 --- The Objectives of this research --- p.8Chapter 2 --- "Studies of the object-oriented, the logic and the functional paradigms" --- p.10Chapter 2.1 --- The Object-Oriented Paradigm --- p.10Chapter 2.1.1 --- Basic components --- p.10Chapter 2.1.2 --- Motivations --- p.11Chapter 2.1.3 --- Some related issues --- p.12Chapter 2.1.4 --- Computational models for object-oriented programming --- p.16Chapter 2.2 --- The Functional Paradigm --- p.18Chapter 2.2.1 --- Basic concepts --- p.18Chapter 2.2.2 --- Lambda calculus --- p.20Chapter 2.2.3 --- The characteristics of functional programs --- p.21Chapter 2.2.4 --- Practicality of functional programming --- p.25Chapter 2.3 --- The Logic Paradigm --- p.28Chapter 2.3.1 --- Relations --- p.28Chapter 2.3.2 --- Logic programs --- p.29Chapter 2.3.3 --- The opportunity for parallelism --- p.30Chapter 2.4 --- Summary --- p.31Chapter 3 --- A survey of some existing multiparadigm languages --- p.32Chapter 3.1 --- Logic + Object-Oriented --- p.33Chapter 3.1.1 --- LogiC++ --- p.33Chapter 3.1.2 --- Intermission --- p.34Chapter 3.1.3 --- Object-Oriented Programming in Prolog (OOPP) --- p.36Chapter 3.1.4 --- Communication Prolog Unit (CPU) --- p.37Chapter 3.1.5 --- DLP --- p.37Chapter 3.1.6 --- Representing Objects in a Logic Programming Language with Scoping Constructs (OLPSC) --- p.39Chapter 3.1.7 --- KSL/Logic --- p.40Chapter 3.1.8 --- Orient84/K --- p.41Chapter 3.1.9 --- Vulcan --- p.42Chapter 3.1.10 --- The Bridge approach --- p.43Chapter 3.1.11 --- Discussion --- p.44Chapter 3.2 --- Functional + Object-Oriented --- p.46Chapter 3.2.1 --- PROOF --- p.46Chapter 3.2.2 --- A Functional Language with Classes (FLC) --- p.47Chapter 3.2.3 --- Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) --- p.49Chapter 3.2.4 --- FOOPS --- p.50Chapter 3.2.5 --- Discussion --- p.51Chapter 3.3 --- Logic + Functional --- p.52Chapter 3.3.1 --- HOPE --- p.52Chapter 3.3.2 --- FUNLOG --- p.54Chapter 3.3.3 --- F* --- p.55Chapter 3.3.4 --- LEAF --- p.56Chapter 3.3.5 --- Applog --- p.57Chapter 3.3.6 --- Discussion --- p.58Chapter 3.4 --- Logic + Functional + Object-Oriented --- p.61Chapter 3.4.1 --- Paradise --- p.61Chapter 3.4.2 --- LIFE --- p.62Chapter 3.4.3 --- UNIFORM --- p.63Chapter 3.4.4 --- G --- p.64Chapter 3.4.5 --- FOOPlog --- p.66Chapter 3.4.6 --- Logic and Objects (L&O) --- p.66Chapter 3.4.7 --- Discussion --- p.67Chapter 4 --- The design of a multiparadigm language I --- p.70Chapter 4.1 --- An Object-Oriented Framework --- p.71Chapter 4.1.1 --- A hierarchy of classes --- p.71Chapter 4.1.2 --- Program structure --- p.71Chapter 4.1.3 --- Parametric classes --- p.72Chapter 4.1.4 --- Inheritance --- p.73Chapter 4.1.5 --- The meanings of classes and methods --- p.75Chapter 4.1.6 --- Objects and messages --- p.75Chapter 4.2 --- The logic Subclasses --- p.76Chapter 4.2.1 --- Syntax --- p.76Chapter 4.2.2 --- Distributed inference --- p.76Chapter 4.2.3 --- Adding functions and expressions to logic programs --- p.77Chapter 4.2.4 --- State modelling --- p.79Chapter 4.3 --- The functional Subclasses --- p.80Chapter 4.3.1 --- The syntax of functions --- p.80Chapter 4.3.2 --- Abstract data types --- p.81Chapter 4.3.3 --- Augmented list comprehensions --- p.82Chapter 4.4 --- The Semantic Foundation of I Programs --- p.84Chapter 4.4.1 --- T1* : Transform functions into Horn clauses --- p.84Chapter 4.4.2 --- T2*: Transform object-oriented features into pure logic --- p.85Chapter 4.5 --- Exploiting Parallelism in I Programs --- p.89Chapter 4.5.1 --- Inter-object parallelism --- p.89Chapter 4.5.2 --- Intra-object parallelism --- p.92Chapter 4.6 --- Discussion --- p.96Chapter 5 --- An implementation of a prototype of I --- p.99Chapter 5.1 --- System Overview --- p.99Chapter 5.2 --- I-to-Prolog Translation --- p.101Chapter 5.2.1 --- Pass 1 - lexical and syntax analysis --- p.101Chapter 5.2.2 --- Pass 2 - Class Table Construction and Semantic Checking --- p.101Chapter 5.2.3 --- Pass 3 - Determination of Multiple Inheritance Precedence --- p.105Chapter 5.2.4 --- Pass 4 - Translation of the directive part --- p.110Chapter 5.2.5 --- Pass 5 - Creation of Prolog source code for an I object --- p.110Chapter 5.2.6 --- Using expressions in logic methods --- p.112Chapter 5.3 --- I-to-LML Translation --- p.114Chapter 5.4 --- The Run-time Handler --- p.117Chapter 5.4.1 --- Object Management --- p.118Chapter 5.4.2 --- Process Management and Message Passing --- p.121Chapter 6 --- Some applications written in I --- p.125Chapter 6.1 --- Modeling of a State Space Search --- p.125Chapter 6.2 --- A Solution to the N-queen Problem --- p.129Chapter 6.3 --- Object-Oriented Modeling of a Database --- p.131Chapter 6.4 --- A Simple Expert System --- p.133Chapter 6.5 --- Summary --- p.138Chapter 7 --- Conclusion and future work --- p.139Chapter 7.1 --- Conclusion --- p.139Chapter 7.2 --- Future Work --- p.141Chapter A --- Language manual --- p.146Chapter A.1 --- Introduction --- p.146Chapter A.2 --- Syntax --- p.146Chapter A.2.1 --- The lexical specification --- p.146Chapter A.2.2 --- The syntax specification --- p.149Chapter A3 --- Classes --- p.152Chapter A.4 --- Object Creation and Method Invocation --- p.153Chapter A.5 --- The logic Subclasses --- p.155Chapter A.6 --- The functional Subclasses --- p.156Chapter A.7 --- Types --- p.158Chapter A.8 --- Mutable States --- p.158Chapter B --- User's guide --- p.160Chapter B.1 --- System Calls --- p.160Chapter B.2 --- Configuration Parameters --- p.162Chapter B.3 --- Errors --- p.163Chapter B.4 --- Implementation Limits --- p.164Chapter B.5 --- How to install the system --- p.164Chapter B.6 --- How to use the system --- p.164Chapter B.7 --- How to recompile the system --- p.166Chapter B.8 --- Directory arrangement --- p.167Chapter C --- List of publications --- p.168Bibliography --- p.16

Lift Control System Based on PLC

In this paper we are scheming and construct three level elevator control system and increase its steady state & stability by using a (PLC) programmable logic controller (Allen Bradley Micrologix-1400 BXBA) the software used for communication is RSLogix-500/5000 PLC’S [1]. These are useful in industrial automation where numbers of equipments are replaced by contactor and switches. In this paper Elevator is nothing but the vertical carrying device which is used to transfer the goods and peoples. Limit switch is used for the floor suggestion. The limit switch is used for positioning of floor. DC motor is used for movement of elevator filing cabinet. Electromagnetic type relay is used in organize circuit to control elevator in upward and downward track. As the India is developing country and there are wide increase in high rise buildings and malls. Elevator is integral part of infrastructure by implementing such paper we can reduce the human efforts, accident due to breakage of rope, efficiency and speed of elevator is improved. Even the time can be consumed by using such system. This paper mainly concentrates on programmable logic controller to control the circuit and building the elevator model. In this paper Three level efficient elevator control system is designed which can be used for different elevator control system having different number of floors

Development of a Three Dimensional Multiscale Computational Model of the Human Epidermis

Transforming Growth Factor (TGF-β1) is a member of the TGF-beta superfamily ligand-receptor network. and plays a crucial role in tissue regeneration. The extensive in vitro and in vivo experimental literature describing its actions nevertheless describe an apparent paradox in that during re-epithelialisation it acts as proliferation inhibitor for keratinocytes. The majority of biological models focus on certain aspects of TGF-β1 behaviour and no one model provides a comprehensive story of this regulatory factor's action. Accordingly our aim was to develop a computational model to act as a complementary approach to improve our understanding of TGF-β1. In our previous study, an agent-based model of keratinocyte colony formation in 2D culture was developed. In this study this model was extensively developed into a three dimensional multiscale model of the human epidermis which is comprised of three interacting and integrated layers: (1) an agent-based model which captures the biological rules governing the cells in the human epidermis at the cellular level and includes the rules for injury induced emergent behaviours, (2) a COmplex PAthway SImulator (COPASI) model which simulates the expression and signalling of TGF-β1 at the sub-cellular level and (3) a mechanical layer embodied by a numerical physical solver responsible for resolving the forces exerted between cells at the multi-cellular level. The integrated model was initially validated by using it to grow a piece of virtual epidermis in 3D and comparing the in virtuo simulations of keratinocyte behaviour and of TGF-β1 signalling with the extensive research literature describing this key regulatory protein. This research reinforces the idea that computational modelling can be an effective additional tool to aid our understanding of complex systems. In the accompanying paper the model is used to explore hypotheses of the functions of TGF-β1 at the cellular and subcellular level on different keratinocyte populations during epidermal wound healing