1 / 6

Steering Committee Meeting June 8, 2009 – Budapest, BME

Steering Committee Meeting June 8, 2009 – Budapest, BME. (Treatment of Recommendations on 1st Review). Recommendation 1.

lovey
Télécharger la présentation

Steering Committee Meeting June 8, 2009 – Budapest, BME

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Steering CommitteeMeetingJune 8, 2009 – Budapest, BME (Treatment of Recommendations on 1st Review)

  2. Recommendation 1 “The consortium is requested to (continue with the efforts to) have synergy between the demonstrators of the UML track; at least by sharing the modelling methodology to the most possible extent and the used tools in the different UML based demonstrators.” Possible treatment (next periodic report): • (ARC, BME) explain that one tool (Papyrus) and one UML-profile (MARTE) is used, causing to have only one methodology. What about UPPAAL, and action systems used for TCG? (“lower” part of UML track) - notion of time, continuous models • UPPAAL vs. Action Systems (BME)? • UPPAAL: used, real-time (sufficient), why not using AS instead? -> Action Item (BME, TUG, ARC) • Action Systems: dev.d in MOG. (extension), sets and OO (TRSS), continuous models

  3. Recommendation 2 The consortium is requested to enforce a fruitful cooperation among the addressed sectors, especially for the two demonstrators in the railway field, by exploiting possible commonalities among the addressed industrial fields and thus approaching the solutions in a (as much as possible) general and reusable way, instead of creating too specialized techniques only applicable for the demonstrator at hand. Possible treatment (next periodic report): • (ETH, BME) common meta-model for all demonstrators not useful. Why?Better to focus on sharing methodologies and tools.Or do we have a common ‚core‘ meta-model? • (SP) MODIFI is general for Simulink models • Demonstrators look at quite different levels • only topology elements in common

  4. Integrated Approach? (Rec.1 & 2) FFA Requ. TRSS RELAB PROLAN Simulink Black-Box White-Box Fault Injection „generic“railway interlock ‚Model‘ C UML (OCL, MARTE) What will actually be done? stimuli(for w.b. coverage) TCG CBMC Act.Sys. UPPAAL MODIFI iLock MCS FFA TRSS PROLAN? FFA RELAB PROLAN RELAB

  5. Recommendation 3 The consortium is requested to clarify in which directions the project is going to enhance the solutions reviewed in the state-of-the-art (SOTA) review, either in an upcoming deliverable - for example D3.1b, due at M24, where project results on developed test generation techniques will be described - or in an updated version of the SOTA review. Possible treatment: • Where to describe? • D3.1b (Fault Models, final, M24) • D4.4 (Integrated Testing Methods and Techniques, M24) • D1.2 (Survey on Test Case Generation Techniques) – Update? • What to describe?

  6. Recommendation 4 The consortium is requested to discuss and provide a rationale to the addressed fault models in the final deliverable 3.1b, and properly relate them to the demonstrators requirements. In addition, 3.1b should also better explain the concept of using constraint satisfaction (CSP) techniques (Section 5.6 of current deliverable 3.1a) in the syndrome level static modelling approach. Possible treatment (D3.1b): • Fault models for mutating UML models? • Fault models for Action Systems? • Fault models for Simulink (+ C?) • Demonstrators-specific fault models? • E.g. railway signalling: confusing left/right in switches/points • are possible faults in input data „fault models“? • (BME) will elaborate concept of syndrome level static modelling and the role of constraint satisfaction techniques

More Related