Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The clock constraint specification language for building timed causality models

Application to synchronous data flow graphs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The uml Profile for Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded (RTE) systems has recently been adopted by the OMG. Its Time Model extends the informal and simplistic Simple Time package proposed by Unified Modeling Language (UML2) and offers a broad range of capabilities required to model RTE systems including discrete/dense and chronometric/logical time. The Marte specification introduces a Time Structure inspired from several time models of the concurrency theory and proposes a new clock constraint specification language (ccsl) to specify, within the context of the uml, logical and chronometric time constraints. A semantic model in ccsl is attached to a (uml) model to give its timed causality semantics. In that sense, ccsl is comparable to the Ptolemy environment, in which directors give the semantics to models according to predefined models of computation and communication. This paper focuses on one historical model of computation of Ptolemy [Synchronous Data Flow (SDF)] and shows how to build SDF graphs by combining uml models and ccsl.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alur R, Dill DL (1994) A theory of timed automata. Theor Comput Sci 126(2): 183–235

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. André C (2009) Syntax and semantics of the clock constraint specification language (CCSL). Research report RR-6925, INRIA. http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00384077/en/

  3. André C, Mallet F (2009) Specification and verification of time requirements with CCSL and esterel. In: LCTES. ACM, New York, pp 167–176

  4. Behrmann G, David A, Larsen KG, Håkansson J, Pettersson P, Yi W, Hendriks M (2006) Uppaal 4.0. In: QEST. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 125–126

  5. Benveniste A, le Guernic P, Jacquemot C (1991) Synchronous programming with events and relations: the signal language and its semantics. Sci Comput Program 16(2): 103–149

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Börger E, Stärk R (2003) Abstract state machines: a method for high-level system design and analysis. Springer, Heidelberg

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Boulanger F, Hardebolle C (2008) Simulation of multi-formalism models with ModHel’X. In: ICST’08: international conference on software testing, verification, and validation. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 318–327. doi:10.1109/ICST.2008.15

  8. Bruel JM, Lilius J, Moreira AMD, France RB (2000) Defining precise semantics for uml. In: Malenfant J, Moisan S, Moreira AMD (eds) ECOOP workshops. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1964. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 113–122

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chen K, Sztipanovits J, Neema S (2005) Toward a semantic anchoring infrastructure for domain-specific modeling languages. In: International conference on embedded software. ACM, New York, pp 35–43

  10. Chiorean D, Pasca M, Cârcu A, Botiza C, Moldovan S (2004) Ensuring uml models consistency using the ocl environment. Electr Notes Theor Comput Sci 102: 99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eker J, Janneck JW, Lee EA, Liu J, Liu X, Ludvig J, Neuendorffer S, Sachs S, Xiong Y (2003) Taming heterogeneity—the ptolemy approach. Proc IEEE 91(1): 127–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eshuis R (2006) Symbolic model checking of uml activity diagrams. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 15(1): 1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frappier M, Gervais F, Laleau R, Fraikin B, St-Denis R (2008) Extending statecharts with process algebra operators. ISSE 4(3): 285–292

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gogolla M, Büttner F, Richters M (2007) Use: a uml-based specification environment for validating uml and ocl. Sci Comput Program 69(1–3): 27–34

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Grieskamp W, Lepper M (2000) Using use cases in executable z. In: ICFEM, pp 111–120

  16. Hoare C (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahn G (1974) The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. Information processing, pp 471–475

  18. Karp RM, Miller RE (1966) Properties of a model for parallel computations: determinacy, termination, queueing. SIAM J Appl Math 14(6): 1390–1411. doi:10.1137/0114108

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamport L (1978) Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun ACM 21(7): 558–565

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Mallet F, André C (2009) On the semantics of UML/MARTE clock constraints. In: ISORC. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 305–312

  21. Muller PA, Fleurey F, Jézéquel JM (2005) Weaving executability into object-oriented meta-languages. In: MoDELS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3713. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 264–278

  22. Object Management Group (2005) UML profile for schedulability, performance, and time specification. OMG document: formal/05-01-02 (v1.1)

  23. Object Management Group (2006) Object constraint language. Version 2.0 formal/2006-05-11

  24. Object Management Group (2007) Unified modeling language, superstructure. Version 2.1.2 formal/2007-11-02

  25. Petri C (1987) Concurrency theory. In: Petri nets: central models and their properties. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 254. pp 4–24

  26. Sinnig D, Chalin P, Khendek F (2009) Lts semantics for use case models. In: Shin SY, Ossowski S (eds) SAC. ACM, New York, pp 365–370

    Google Scholar 

  27. Störrle H (2005) Semantics and verification of data flow in UML 2.0 activities. Electr Notes Theor Comput Sci 127(4): 35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Object Management Group (2009). UML Profile for MARTE, v1.0. formal/2009-11-02

  29. Yang D, sheng Zhang S (2003) Using pi-calculus to formalize uml activity diagram. In: ECBS. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 47–54

  30. Yu L, France RB, Ray I (2008) Scenario-based static analysis of uml class models. In: Czarnecki K, Ober I, Bruel JM, Uhl A, Völter M (eds) MoDELS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5301. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 234–248

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, Aoste Team-Project, INRIA-I3S-CNRS, 2004 rte des Lucioles, 06902, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

    Frédéric Mallet, Julien DeAntoni & Charles André

  2. INRIA Sophia Antipolis Méditerrannée, Aoste Team-Project, INRIA-I3S-CNRS, 2004 rte des Lucioles, 06902, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

    Robert de Simone

Authors
  1. Frédéric Mallet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien DeAntoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles André
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert de Simone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frédéric Mallet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mallet, F., DeAntoni, J., André, C. et al. The clock constraint specification language for building timed causality models. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 6, 99–106 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-009-0109-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-009-0109-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation