Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus Chair of Computer Networks and Communication Systems BTU Cottbus, LS Rechnernetze und Kommunikationssysteme, Lehrstuhlinhaber: Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. König Cottbus, Postfach ,Telefon: 0355/ Fax: 0355/ Embedded software generation using model driven development (A vision with the „State of the Art“) Prabhu Shankar Kaliappan

2 Outline  Session I  Background  Introduction about Model Driven Development (MDD)  Session II  Embedded systems and communication protocols  State of the Art  Survey results  Conclusion

3 Background(1/2)  The issue  People schedule 60% of their research time in the programming.  Design becomes more complexity in the heterogeneous project.  Need to focus about the platform specifications rather than the problem. Program Leads Problem domain Program Problem domain

4 Background (2/2)  The solution  A middleware called modeling can be used as a bridge.  By Modeling  Standard way for ☞ Design, Develop, Verify and Deploy. Program Problem domain Model analyse and design code Abstracts from implementation details Abstracts from irrelevant details

5 Introduction about Model driven development  Model Driven Development  Represents the artifact from design to the deployment (code).  Platform specification  Auto map into platform and deploy  Method  Model Driven Architecture  Uses a set of standard specifications for development

6 Overview of the OMG Model Driven Architecture (MDA)  An approach to IT system specification that separates the specification of system functionality from the specification of the implementation.  MDA is a development paradigm that applies domain specific modeling languages systematically to engineer computing systems  Small scale real-time and embedded systems to large scale distributed enterprise applications  It is model driven because it uses models to direct the course of  Understanding, design, construction, deployment, operation, maintenance and modification  “Design once, build it on any platform”

7 The Object Management Group (OMG)  An open membership and no-profit consortium  Produces and mantains computer industry specifications for interoperable enterprise applications Who are OMG?

8 Basic concepts of MDA  A model is a formal specification of the function, structure and/or behaviour of a system  Examples:  Source code is a model  An UML-based specification is a model  Models of different systems are structured explicitly into:  Computational Independent Models (CIM)  The goal of CIM is to bridge the gap between domain experts and developers  Platform Independent Models (PIM)  Platform Specific Models (PSM)

9 MDA Model Types  Platform-independent models (PIMs)  A “formal” specification of the structure and function of a system that abstracts away technical detail  Expressed using UML PIM: an example

10 MDA Model Types  Platform-specific models (PSMs)  Specifies how the functionality specified in a PIM is realized on a particular platform  Expressed using UML extended with platform specific UML profilesUML profiles  solves the following issues:  Platform integration  The uncertainty of changing platform technology

11 PSM: an example

12 MDA metamodel MOF Other languages UML Metamodel PIM Mapping techniques PSM Mapping techniques PIM PSM Infrastructure > > 1..n 1..n Refactoring from PSM to PIM > > 1..n 1..n Mapping from PIM to PIM 1..n Mapping from PIM to PSM 1..n Mapping from PSM to PSM 1..n > >

13 MDA in a Snapshot Core Technologies Core Target Platforms Pervasive Services Vertical Domains

14 MDA based design CIM Task Model Platform Independent Model (PIM) Computational Independent Model Platform Specific Model (PSM) Specific Platform Code Generation / Simulation QVT Queries/Views/ Transformations - OMG Top Down Approach Bottom Up Approach Request PIM PSM Code C++ / Java / SystemC + Libraries

15 Benefits of MDA  Programming platform independence  Synthesize code ability which is highly dependable  Rapidly prototype new concepts and applications  Reduce cost in design and maintenance  Minimum of 5% efficiency can be tuned through MDA technique

Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus Chair of Computer Networks and Communication Systems BTU Cottbus, LS Rechnernetze und Kommunikationssysteme, Lehrstuhlinhaber: Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. König Cottbus, Postfach ,Telefon: 0355/ Fax: 0355/ Questions on MDA..

17 Outline  Session I  Background  Introduction about Model Driven Development (MDD)  Session II  Embedded systems and communication protocols  State of the Art  Survey results  Conclusion

18 Role of Embedded systems....  Applications  Automotive electronics  Aircraft electronics  Telecommunication  Medical Systems  Authentication Systems  Robotics  Consumer electronics.....  Aspects  Communication is one of the factor to be considered in dependable systems  Communication protocols to be desgined and validated systematically  Well communication protocol leads to  QoS  Fault tolerant systems..

19 Communication Protocols  May vary from domains  Network (PC to PC communication)  Process (Inter Process Communication)  Protocol basis..  Sender and Receiver : Transparent to the user  Problem ☞ What happens when the data is discarded? ☞ What happens when the data is lost? ☞ What happens when the system is crashed? ☞ What happens when the communication medium is lost? ☞ What happens when the data has extra bits?  Solution ☞ Design/Develop a self-intelligence based protocol.

20 Example of a communication protocol  eXample Data Transfer Protocol  Transfer large amount of data over unreliable media  Faults  Predictable and Unpredicatable faults

21 Development of communication protocols  Communication protocols  Set of procedure(s) used to transfer „n“ byte(s) of data between two nodes.  Three ways  Structured design methodology + C  Formal description technique + Target code (SDL, Estell, Lotos)  Object Oriented Aproach + Target code (UML Profiles)  increased modularity, flexibility, extensibility and reusability ☞ Model Driven Architecture techniques Advantage - Efficient Implementation Dis-advantage - resuability & flexibility Dis-advantage - resuability & implementation is limited Advantage - Standard specifications

Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus Chair of Computer Networks and Communication Systems BTU Cottbus, LS Rechnernetze und Kommunikationssysteme, Lehrstuhlinhaber: Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. König Cottbus, Postfach ,Telefon: 0355/ Fax: 0355/ State of the Art MDA based approaches for embedded systems

23 Various approaches  Tools for Application specific hardware/software Co-design (TACO) // [Marcus 04]  Software construction and embeded systems laboratories, Finland.  Generic Modeling Environment// [Gme 07]  Institute for S/w integrated Vanderbilt university, Tennessee, USA.  Dataparallelism for Real-Time Systems (DaRT)// [Jean 05]  The French National Institute for Research in Computer Science, France.  The Cadena project// [Cade 07]  University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA.  Model-Integrated Computing (MIC) // [Mic 07]  Object Management Group  Component Synthesis with Model Integrated Computing (CoSMIC)// [Cosm 07]  Institute for S/w integrated Vanderbilt university, Tennessee, USA.

24 TACO protocol processing architecture  Idea  Advantages  Efficient Implementation  Flexibility  Disadvantages  Limited validation  QVT is an general mapping profile Requirement Specification PIMPSM Domain Information for hw/sw Mapping rules from QVT

25 Generic Modeling Environment  Idea  Framework is based on Metamodel (PIM‘s and PSM‘s)  Advantages  Efficient implementation, flexibility, validation (thru tool)  UML profiles  Domain Specific  Disadvantages  General approach for all embedded softwares Requirement Specification PIMPSM Domain Specific Mapping GME tool

26 DaRT - Dataparallelism for Real-Time  Idea  Advantages  Efficiency  UML profile for SoC  Simulation results  Disadvantages  Common approach  Explicit verification  Less semantics  Focus only on simulation Requirement Specification PSM PIM TLMRTL Interop Bridge PSM

27 The Cadena project  Idea  Advantages  Efficient code generation  Proper validation of model  Disadvantages  Lack of domain specific language semantics Requirement Specification PIMPSM Model Checkers UML Profiles : MARTE

28 MIC & CoSMIC  MIC  Idea  Based UML profiles from OMG  Specification support for domain specific modeling languages  Uses GME as base + model checking  CoSMIC  Combination of GME and MIC: Component based  Advantages  Formal verification techniques  Model interpreter are used for application domain  Disadvantages  Very general approach  Not suitable for protocol specification.

29 Survey results based on the development  Lack of specification profiles (for protocols)  Protocol needs early stage of validation Challenge TACOGMEDaRTCadenaMICCoSMIC Design YYYYYY Mapping YYYNYY Verification and Validation Early NYNNNY Final YNYYYY Code generation YYYYYY Testing thru Profiles NYNYNY Domain Specific Languages Y (L)N N Legend: Y - Yes, N - No, (L) – Limited support

30 Survey results based on the development  Lack of specification profiles (for protocols)  Protocol needs early stage of validation Challenge TACOGMEDaRTCadenaMICCoSMIC Design YYYYYY Mapping YYYNYY Verification and Validation Early NYNNNY Final YNYYYY Code generation YYYYYY Testing thru Profiles NYNYNY Domain Specific Languages Y (L)N N Legend: Y - Yes, N - No, (L) – Limited support

31 How to improve  Appropriate methodology for communication protocol design and specifiations (as Domain Specific Language)  Incorporating the Verification Validation techniques in early stage of the development  Through Formal Verification Techniques  Introducing enhanced model checkers with proper semantics  Probably UML based profiles  UML profile for dependable systems (MARTE – Modeling and Analysis for Real-Time Embedded systems)  UML profile for System on a Chip  UML profile for SystemC

32 Template for modeling Model Checker Model Verifier System Mapper Domain Specifier Transformation Rules (QVT) UML Profiles System Modeler S/W ModelH/W Model Computational Independent Model.Net, C++, Java, SystemC REFINEMENTSREFINEMENTS System Generator / System Validator Integrated Model E X P L I C I T S E M A N T I C S Target Model Libraries Plugins Code Generator / Translator XMI UML Models Verification and Validation A Template based on MDA technique Domain Specific Language for communication protocols

33 Summary  Model Driven Development  Communication protocol  State of the art  Model Driven Techniques  Importance ☞ Domain specific language for protocol design ☞ Requirement of validation techniques  Design Template  Early validation for models

34 Future Work  Verification and Validation Techniques  Communication Protocols  Design specification for communication protocols  UML based specification  Incorporate V&V with design template  Spin tool + formal verification techniques  Case Study  Implementation  Efficiency comparison

35

36 References [Marc 04] Marcus, A.; Johan, L.; Ivan, P.; Dragos, T.: “MDE Support in a Protocol Processing Design Method”, Proceedings of Model-Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications 2004, page(s): , Reseach Center for Intergrational Software Engineering, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping, Sweden, Jun, [Gme 07] “Generic Modeling Environment”, [Jean 05] Jean-Luc, D.; Philippe, M.; Samy, M.; Cédric, D.; Pierre, B.; Smail, N.: “Why to do without Model Driven Architecture in embedded system codesign?”, The first annual IEEE BENELUX/DSP Valley Signal Processing Symposium, (SPS-DARTS 2005), Antwerp, Belgium, April [Cade 07] [Mic 07] “Model Integrated Computing”, [Cosm 07] [Mda 08] [Omg 08]

37 Some of the OMG members:  AT&T  BEA  Borland  Boeing  CA  Citigroup  Compaq  Ericsson  Ford  Fujitsu  Glaxo  HP  Hitachi  Hyperion  IBM  IONA  io Software  Kabira  KC  John Deere  Microsoft  MITRE  MSC Soft  NASA  NEC  NetGenics  NTT  OASIS  Oracle  Pfizer  Rational  SAGA  SAP  SAS  Secant  Siemens  Sprint  Sun  Unisys  Vertel

38 UML Profile // [Omg 08]  A standardized set of extensions (stereotypes and tagged values)  Defines an UML environment tailored to a particular use, such as modeling for a specific platform  OMG Systems Modeling Langauge (SysML)  UML Profile for CORBA  UML Profile for CORBA® Component Model (CCM)  UML Profile for CORBA® & CORBA® Component Model (CCM)  UML Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (aka UPDM)  UML Profile for Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)  UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC)  UML Profile for Modeling and Analysis of Real-time and Embedded Systems (MARTE) (Dependable Systems)  UML Profile for Modeling QoS and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms  UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time  UML Profile for Software Radio  UML Profile for System on a Chip (SoC)  UML Profile for Voice  UML Testing Profile