Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Dagstuhl Workshop on Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Real-Time Systems

MBEERTS 2007: Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Real-Time Systems pp 77–103Cite as

4 Semantics of UML Models for Dynamic Behavior

A Survey of Different Approaches

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6100))

Abstract

Models are used for a number of different purposes, from the requirements capture and design of a new system, to the testing of an existing system. Many different modeling languages are available, and the semantics given for the languages vary from informal natural language descriptions to various kinds of mathematical or logical definitions. When choosing a modeling language and accompanying semantics, a number of things need to be taken into consideration, such as who are the users of the models, what is the purpose of the models, what kind of application is being modeled, and what are the essential features that must be captured.

When modeling embedded systems, an essential aspect is the interaction between hardware and software. Hence, we need to capture the behavior of the hardware and software components. For capturing the dynamic behavior of components, modeling languages like UML sequence diagrams, state machines and similar notations are often used. This paper surveys different approaches to formally capturing the semantics of models expressed using languages of this kind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1.1 (non-change bar). OMG Document: formal/2007-02-05 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing life into Message Sequence Charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 45–80 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. International Telecommunication Union: Specification and description language (SDL), ITU-T Recommendation Z.100 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Labinaz, G., Bayoumi, M.M., Rudie, K.: A survey of modeling and control of hybrid systems. Annual Reviews of Control 21, 79–92 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Giese, H., Henkler, S.: A survey of approaches for the visual model-driven development of next generation software-intensive systems. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 17(6), 528–550 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McLean, J.: A general theory of composition for trace sets closed under selective interleaving functions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, pp. 79–93. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters 21(4), 181–185 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Transactions on Information System Security 3(1), 30–50 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: What’s the semantics of “semantics”? Computer 37(10), 64–72 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prinz, A.: Formal semantics of specification languages. Telektronikk (4), 146–155 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, W.P.: 29 new unclarities in the semantics of UML 2.0 state machines. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 52–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmidt, D.A.: Denotational semantics. A methodology for language development. William C. Brown (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hoare, C.A.R., Jifeng, H.: Unifying theories of programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language Specification, version 1.4. OMG Document: formal/2001-09-67 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Facchi, C.: Formal semantics of Time Sequence Diagrams. Technical report TUM-I9540, Technische Universität München (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Telecommunication Union: Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic reference model: Conventions for the definition of OSI services, ITU-T Recommendation X.210 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bræk, R., Gorman, J., Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Melby, G., Sanders, R., Stålhane, T.: TIMe: The Integrated Method. Electronic Textbook v4.0. SINTEF (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  21. International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120, Annex B: Formal semantics of Message Sequence Charts (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haugen, Ø.: Comparing UML 2.0 Interactions and MSC-2000. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Object Management Group: UML Testing Profile, version 1.0. OMG Document: formal/2005-07-07 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Object Management Group: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, version 1.1. OMG Document: formal/2005-01-02 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Katoen, J.P., Lambert, L.: Pomsets for Message Sequence Charts. In: Formale Beschreibungstechniken für Verteilte Systeme, pp. 197–208. Shaker (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alur, J., Yannakakis, M.: Model checking of Message Sequence Charts. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Krüger, I.H.: Distributed system design with Message Sequence Charts. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 4(4), 355–367 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Seehusen, F., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Adherence preserving refinement of trace-set properties in STAIRS: Exemplified for information flow properties and policies. Software and Systems Modeling 8(1), 45–65 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Störrle, H.: Assert, negate and refinement in UML 2 interactions. In: 2nd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSD-UML 2003), Technische Universität München, pp. 79–93 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Störrle, H.: Semantics of interaction in UML 2.0. In: IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC 2003), pp. 129–136. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Störrle, H.: Trace semantics of interactions in UML 2.0. Technical report TR 0403, Institut für Informatik, der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 interactions: Semantics and refinement. In: 3rd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSD-UML 2004), Technische Universität München, pp. 85–99 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Küster-Filipe, J.: Modelling concurrent interactions. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 304–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Alur, R., Holzmann, G.J., Peled, D.: An analyzer for Message Sequence Charts. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1055, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Inference of Message Sequence Charts. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(7), 623–633 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zheng, T., Khendek, F., Hélouët, L.: A semantics for timed MSC. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 65(7), 85–99 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng, T., Khendek, F., Parreaux, B.: Refining timed MSCs. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2708, pp. 234–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Why timed sequence diagrams require three-event semantics. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios: Models, Transformations and Tools. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Runde, R.K.: STAIRS - Understanding and developing specifications expressed as UML interaction diagrams. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Faltin, N., Lambert, L., Mitschele-Thiel, A., Slomka, F.: An annotational extension of Message Sequence Charts to support performance engineering. In: 8th International SDL Forum: Time for Testing, SDL, MSC and Trends (SDL 1997), pp. 307–322. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lambert, L.: PMSC for performance evaluation. In: 1st Workshop on Performance and Time in SDL/MSC, pp. 70–80 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Refsdal, A., Husa, K.E., Stølen, K.: Specification and refinement of soft real-time requirements using sequence diagrams. In: Pettersson, P., Yi, W. (eds.) FORMATS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3829, pp. 32–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Refsdal, A., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Underspecification, inherent nondeterminism and probability in sequence diagrams. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 138–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Refsdal, A.: Specifying computer systems with probabilistic sequence diagrams. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mauw, S.: The formalization of Message Sequence Charts. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 28(1), 1643–1657 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mauw, S., Reniers, M.A.: An algebraic semantics of Basic Message Sequence Charts. The Computer Journal 37(4), 269–278 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Okazaki, M., Aoki, T., Katayama, T.: Formalizing sequence diagrams and state machines using Concurrent Regular Expression. In: 2nd International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools, SCESM 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mauw, S., Reniers, M.A.: Operational semantics for MSC’96. Computer Networks 31(17), 1785–1799 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mauw, S., Reniers, M.A.: High-level Message Sequence Charts. In: 8th International SDL Forum: Time for Testing, SDL, MSC and Trends (SDL 1997), pp. 291–306. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Letichevsky, A.A., Kapitonova, J.V., Kotlyarov, V.P., Volkov, V.A., Letichevsky Jr., A.A., Weigert, T.: Semantics of Message Sequence Charts. In: Prinz, A., Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3530, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and verification of MSC graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 331(1), 97–114 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specification and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 13(1), 37–85 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Graubmann, P., Rudolph, E., Grabowski, J.: Towards a Petri net based semantics for Message Sequence Charts. In: 6th International SDL Forum: Using objects (SDL 1993), pp. 179–190. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Heymer, S.: A semantics for MSC based on Petri net components. In: 4th International SDL and MSC Workshop (SAM 2000), pp. 262–275 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sgroi, M., Kondratyev, A., Watanabe, Y., Lavagno, L., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Synthesis of Petri nets from Message Sequence Charts specifications for protocol design. In: Design, Analysis and Simulation of Distributed Systems Symposium (DASD 2004), pp. 193–199 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gunter, E.L., Muscholl, A., Peled, D.: Compositional Message Sequence Charts. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 5(1), 78–89 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., Merseguer, J.: From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable Petri net models. In: 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2002), pp. 35–45. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jonsson, B., Padilla, G.: An execution semantics for MSC-2000. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2078, pp. 365–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Lund, M.S.: Operational analysis of sequence diagram specifications. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lund, M.S., Stølen, K.: A fully general operational semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams with potential and mandatory choice. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 380–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: Operational semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Technical report TUM-I0505, Technische Universität München (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mühlberger, H.: Eine verteile operationale Semantik für UML 2.0-Interaktionen. Diplomarbeit, Institut für Informatik, der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cavarra, A., Küster-Filipe, J.: Formalizing liveness-enriched sequence diagrams using ASMs. In: Zimmermann, W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ASM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3052, pp. 67–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-liveness semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In: 5th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2005), pp. 6–14. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, let’s play: Scenario-based programming using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Harel, D., Thiagarajan, P.S.: Message Sequence Charts. In: Lavagano, L., Martin, G., Selic, B. (eds.) UML for real. Design of embedded real-time systems, pp. 77–105. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In: 5th International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM 2006), pp. 13–19. ACM Press, New York (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Sengupta, B., Cleaveland, R.: Triggered Message Sequence Charts. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 27(6), 167–176 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sengupta, B., Cleaveland, R.: Triggered Message Sequence Carts. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32(8) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kosiuczenko, P., Wirsing, M.: Towards an integration of Message Sequence Charts and Timed Maude. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science 5(1), 23–44 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Crane, M.L., Dingel, J.: On the semantics of UML state machines: Categorization and comparison. Technical report 2005-501, School of Computing, Queens’s University, Kingston (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Rumpe, B.: Towards a system model for UML, the structural data model. Technical report TUM-I0612, Technische Universität München (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Rumpe, B.: Towards a system model for UML, part 2: The control model. Technical report TUM-I0710, Technische Universität München (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Rumpe, B.: Towards a system model for UML, part 3: The state machine model. Technical report TUM-I0711, Technische Universität München (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Broy, M., Stølen, K.: Specification and development of interactive systems. In: FOCUS on streams, interface, and refinement. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Simons, A.J.H.: On the compositional properties of UML statechart diagrams. In: Rigorous Object-Oriented Methods (ROOM 2000), Workshops in Computing, BCS (2000) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rossi, C., Enciso, M., de Guzmán, I.P.: Formalization of UML state machines using temporal logic. Software and Systems Modeling 3(1), 31–54 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hinkel, U.: Verification of SDL specifications on the basis of stream semantics. In: 1st Workshop of the SDL Forum Society on SDL and MSC (SAM 1998), pp. 241–250 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Holz, E., Stølen, K.: An attempt to embed a restricted version of SDL as a target language in Focus. In: Formal Description Techniques VII (FORTE 1994), pp. 324–339. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(4), 293–333 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamad, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.: STATEMATE: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(4), 403–414 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Gurevich, Y.: Evolving algebras 1993: Lipari guide. In: Specification and Validation Methods, pp. 9–36. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: On formalizing UML state machines using ASMs. Information and Software Technology 46(5), 287–292 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: Modeling the dynamics of UML state machines. In: International Workshop on Abstract State Machines, Theory and Applications, pp. 223–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: Modeling the meaning of transitions from and to concurrent states in UML state machines. In: 2003 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1086–1091. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. Jürjens, J.: A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing. In: 2002 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1009–1013. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  88. Jürjens, J.: Secure systems development with UML. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  89. von der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 1(2), 130–141 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Knapp, A., Merz, S., Rauh, C.: Model checking timed UML state machines and collaborations. In: 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, pp. 395–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  91. Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal in a nutshell. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1, 134–152 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  92. Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 126(2), 183–235 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  93. Lüttgen, G., von der Beeck, M., Cleaveland, R.: A compositional approach to statecharts semantics. Technical report, Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Jansen, D.N., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: A QoS-oriented extension of UML statecharts. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 76–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  95. Jansen, D.N., Hermanns, H.: Qos modelling and analysis with UML-statecharts: the Stocharts approach. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 32(4), 28–33 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Requirements-level semantics for UML statecharts. In: 4th International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems IV, pp. 121–140. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  97. Huszerl, G., Kosmidis, K., Cin, M.D., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A.: Quantitative analysis of UML statechart models of dependable systems. The Computer Journal 45(3), 260–277 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SINTEF ICT, Norway

    Mass Soldal Lund, Atle Refsdal & Ketil Stølen

  2. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway

    Ketil Stølen

Authors
  1. Mass Soldal Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atle Refsdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ketil Stølen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso Plattner Institute for Software Systems Engineering, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, 14482, Potsdam, Germany

    Holger Giese

  2. Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University, P.O. Box 1829, TN 37235, Sta. B. Nashville, USA

    Gabor Karsai

  3. Department of EECS, UC Berkeley, USA

    Edward Lee

  4. Software Engineering, Department of Computer Science 3, RWTH Aachen University, Ahornstrae 55, D-52074, Aachen, Germany

    Bernhard Rumpe

  5. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität, München, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748, Garching, Germany

    Bernhard Schätz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lund, M.S., Refsdal, A., Stølen, K. (2010). 4 Semantics of UML Models for Dynamic Behavior. In: Giese, H., Karsai, G., Lee, E., Rumpe, B., Schätz, B. (eds) Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Real-Time Systems. MBEERTS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6100. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16277-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16277-0_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16276-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16277-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation