skip to main content
research-article

Usage-Specific Semantic Integration for Cyber-Physical Robot Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 May 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The multidisciplinary nature and time criticality of computing in Cyber-Physical Robot Systems (CPRS) makes it significantly different from traditional computer systems. This article attempts to create a usage-specific language called Cyber-Physical Robot Language (CPRL), which supports the CPRS design and implementation in an integrative and swift way. Multiview description and integration strategies as well as formal execution semantics for usage-specific simulation and verification are outlined. A graphic unified environment for CPRS modeling is supplied, in which several tools are integrated. A 6-DOF distributed robot system development in the environment is presented. The approach is an attempt to support CPRS design in an effective way, at the same time guaranteeing the system function and performance requirements.

References

  1. A. Agrawal. 2003. Graph rewriting and transformation (GReAT): A solution for the model integrated computing (MIC) bottleneck. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’03). IEEE, Montreal, Canada, 387--392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. F. Balarin, L. Lavagno, C. Passerone, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, G. Yang, and Y. Watanabe. 2002. Concurrent execution semantics and sequential simulation algorithms for the metropolis meta-model. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Hardware/Software Codesign (CODES’02). IEEE Computer Society Press, Estes Park, CO. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Brooks, T. Kaupp, and A. Makarenko. 2005. Towards component-based robotics. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, Edmonton, Alta, 1113--1125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Chen, J. Wan, and F. Li. 2012. Machine-to-machine communications: Architectures, standards, and applications. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems 6, 2, 480--497.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Densmore, R. Passerone, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2006. A platform-based taxonomy for ESL design. IEEE Design and Test of Computers 23, 5, 359--374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dome. 2010. Dome Guide Version 5.2.2. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.htc.honeywell.com/dome/inrec.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. V. Dubinin and V. Vyatkin. 2008. On definition of a formal model for IEC 61499 function blocks. EURASIP Journal of Embedded Systems 1, 1, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Rajeev et al. 2003. Hierarchical modeling and analysis of embedded systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 91, 1, 11--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Willow Garage. 2009. ROS Document. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.ros.org/wiki. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Ghosal and T. Henzinger. 2006. Hierarchical Timing Language. Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2006-79. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. T. Henzinger, B. Horowitz, and C. Kirsch. 2001. Giotto: A time-triggered language for embedded programming. In 1st International Workshop (EMSOFT’01). IEEE, Tahoe City, 166--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Holobloc Inc. 2005. Function Blocks Development Kit. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.holobloc.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Huang, W. Haid, I. Bacivarov, M. Keller, and L. Thiele. 2012. Embedding formal performance analysis into the design cycle of MPSoCs for real-time streaming applications. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 11, 1, 222--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. International Electro technical Commission (IEC). 2005. International Standard IEC 61499, Function Blocks, Part 1-Part 4{S}. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.iec.ch/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. V. U. ISIS. 2013. Generic Modeling Environment. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://repo.isis.vanderbilt.edu/. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Khoury, O. Redell, and M. Turngren. 2005. A tool integration platform for multi-disciplinary development. Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications 175, 18, 442--450. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Akos Ledeczi. 2002. MILAN. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu/projects/milan/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. E. Lee. 2008. Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 363--369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. E. Lee, S. Neuendorffer, and M. Wirthlin. 2003. Actor-oriented design of embedded hardware and software systems. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers 12, 3, 231--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. D. Li, F. Li, and X. Huang. 2010. A model based integration framework for computer numerical control system development. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26, 4, 333--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fang Li, Jiafu Wan, Ping Zhang, and Di Li. 2013. A multi-view integration language for cyber-physical robotic system. In ICMLC. IEEE, Vienna, Austria, 387--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Song Li, Di Li, Fang Li, and Nan Zhou. 2015. CPSiCGF: A code generation framework for CPS integration modeling. Microprocessors and Microsystems 39, 2015, 1234--1244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Marcel and J. Broenink. 2006. Multi-view methodology for the design of embedded mechatronic control systems. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Conference on Computer Aided Control Systems Design. IEEE, Munich, Germany, 416--421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Metropolis Project Teami. 2004. The Metropolis Meta-Model - Version 0.4. Technical Report UCB/ERL M04/38, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. O3 Neida. 2003. 4DIAC Project. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.fordiac.org/10.0.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Object Management Group. 2014. OMG Meta-Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.4.1. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.omg.org/mof/. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Object Management Group. 2001. Model Driven Architecture - A Technical Perspective. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.omg.org/mda/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Orocos. 2015. The OROCOS Project. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.orocos.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Porter, Z. Lattmann, G. Hemingway, N. Mahadevan, and S. Neema. 2009. The ESMoL modeling language and tools for synthesizing and simulating real-time embedded systems. In 15th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. IEEE, San Francisco, 112--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Sameh and R. Kharboutly. 2004. Modeling Jini-UPnP bridge using Rapide ADL. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACS International Conference on Pervasive Services (ICPS’04). IEEE, Beirut, 84--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. SystemC Community. 2003. Open SystemC initiative web site. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.systemc.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Sztipanovits, G. Karsai, P. Antsaklis, and J. Baras. 2012. Context-aware vehicular cyber-physical systems with cloud support: Architecture, challenges, and solutions. Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Cyber-Physical Systems 100, 1, 29--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. University of California Berkeley. 2003. Ptolemy Project. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. University of Patras. 2005. CORFU Project. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://seg.ee.upatras.gr/corfu/dev/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. N. Voros, M. Hübner, J. Becker, et al. 2013. MORPHEUS: A heterogeneous dynamically reconfigurable platform for designing highly complex embedded systems. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 12, 3, 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. V. Vyatkin and V. Dubinin. 2007. Sequential axiomatic model for execution of basic function blocks in IEC 61499. In 5th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN’07). IEEE, Vienna, Austria, 11831188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J. Wan and H. Yan. 2013. Enabling cyber physical systems with machine-to-machine technologies. International Journal on Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Computing 13, 34, 187--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jiafu Wan, H. Yan, Di Li, K. Zhou, and L. Zeng. 2013. Cyber-physical systems for optimal energy management scheme of autonomous electric vehicle. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems 56, 8, 947--956.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. J. Wan, D. Zhang, Y. Sun, K. Lin, C. Zou, and H. Cai. 2014a. VCMIA: A novel architecture for integrating vehicular cyber-physical systems and mobile cloud computing. Mobile Networks and Applications 19, 2, 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. J. Wan, D. Zhang, S. Zhao, L. Yang, and J. Lloret. 2014b. Context-aware vehicular cyber-physical systems with cloud support: Architecture, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Communications Magazine 52, 8, 106--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. T. Wongpiromsarn, S. Mitra, A. Lamperski, and R. Murray. 2012. Verification of periodically controlled hybrid systems: Application to an autonomous vehicle. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 11, S2 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. E. Wozniak, C. Mraidha, S. Gerard, and F. Terrier. 2011. A guidance framework for the generation of implementation models in automotive domain. EUROMICRO-SEAA 12, 3, 468--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. G. Yang, H. Hsieh, X. Chen, F. Balarin, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2006. Constraints assisted modeling and validation in Metropolis framework. In Asilomar Conference on Signal, Systems and Computers. IEEE Computer Society Press, Pacific Grove, CA, 1469--1474.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. ZeroC Inc. 2009. ZeroC. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.zeroc.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. F. Zhang and A. Burns. 2013. Schedulability analysis of EDF-scheduled embedded real-time systems with resource sharing. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 12, 3, 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Usage-Specific Semantic Integration for Cyber-Physical Robot Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!