integration beyond components and models: research challenges and directions
TRANSCRIPT
1
Integration Beyond Components and Models: Directions and Challenges
Ivan Ruchkin
4th Architecture-Centric Virtual Integration WorkshopWICSA/CompArch 2016
Venice, ItalyApril 5, 2016
2
Image cre dit: bankin fosecurity. com
3
Image cre dit: bankin fosecurity. com
Imag
e cr
e dit:
tech
nolo
gyne
wh e
re.w
ordp
ress
.com
4
Image cre dit: bankin fosecurity. com
Imag
e cr
e dit:
tech
nolo
gyne
wh e
re.w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
5
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
6
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world● But: Heterogeneity of system elements
7
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world● But: Heterogeneity of system elements● But: Growing complexity and scale
8
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world● But: Heterogeneity of system elements● But: Growing complexity and scale● Danger: interactions fail → systems fail
9
Integration
Bringing together elements of a system to make them operate cohesively.
Image cre dit: chevin fleet.com
10
Integration
● What have we been doing? – Integration for components; models.
Image cre dit: chevin fleet.com
11
Integration
● What have we been doing? – Integration for components; models.
● What is coming up? – Integration for modeling methods; data; humans.
Image cre dit: chevin fleet.com
12
Component IntegrationIm
age
cre d
it:
tech
nolo
gyne
whe
re. w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
13
Component IntegrationIm
age
cre d
it:
tech
nolo
gyne
whe
re. w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
14
Component IntegrationIm
age
cre d
it:
tech
nolo
gyne
whe
re. w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
15
Component IntegrationIm
age
cre d
it:
tech
nolo
gyne
whe
re. w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
16
Component IntegrationIm
age
cre d
it:
tech
nolo
gyne
whe
re. w
ordp
ress
.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
17
Component Integration
● Interface and composition– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
[1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012.[2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state-based component implementations, STTT 2013.
18
Component Integration
● Interface and composition– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability
[1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012.[2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state-based component implementations, STTT 2013.
19
Component Integration
● Interface and composition– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability
● Compositional reasoning – Contract-based design [3]
[1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012.[2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state-based component implementations, STTT 2013. [3] Benveniste et al. Contracts for Systems Design: Theory, Research Report, 2015.
20
Component Integration
● Interface and composition– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability
● Compositional reasoning – Contract-based design [3]
● Shortcoming: cross-cutting quality concerns
[1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012.[2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state-based component implementations, STTT 2013. [3] Benveniste et al. Contracts for Systems Design: Theory, Research Report, 2015.
21
Model Integration
22
Model Integration
23
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
24
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
2. Relation
25
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
2. Relation
Structural Behavioral
...
26
● On the structural side:– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
Model Integration
[4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011.
27
● On the structural side:– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
● On the behavioral side: – Heterogeneous simulation [6]
– Behavior relations [7]
Model Integration
[4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011. [6] Eker et al. Taming heterogeneity - the Ptolemy approach, Proc. of IEEE 20013. [7] Rajhans et al. Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical Systems Architectures, TAC 2014.
28
● On the structural side:– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
● On the behavioral side: – Heterogeneous simulation [6]
– Behavior relations [7]
● Shortcoming: fragility in the face of change
Model Integration
[4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011. [6] Eker et al. Taming heterogeneity - the Ptolemy approach, Proc. of IEEE 20013. [7] Rajhans et al. Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical Systems Architectures, TAC 2014.
29
Integration
● What have we been doing?
– Integration for components; models.● What is coming up?
– Integration for modeling methods; data; humans.
Image cre dit: chevin fleet.com
30
Modeling Method Integration
31
Modeling Method Integration
32
Modeling Method Integration
Focus: analysis/transformation procedures
33
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques: – Dependency management [8]
[8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013.
34
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques: – Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
[8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013.[9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
35
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques: – Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
● How can evolution of sets of heterogeneous CPS models be systematically supported?
[8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013.[9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
36
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques: – Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
● How can evolution of sets of heterogeneous CPS models be systematically supported?
● How can tools, processes, and methods for CPS modeling be integrated?
[8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013.[9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
37
Data Integration
38
Data IntegrationIm
age cre dit: Deshe ng Z
hang
39
Data Integration
Focus: heterogeneous datasets from CPS elements
Image cre dit: D
eshe ng Zhang
40
Data Integration
● How can data incompleteness in CPS design be detected and compensated for?
41
Data Integration
● How can data incompleteness in CPS design be detected and compensated for?
● How can model-based and data-centric approaches to system design be (non-trivially) synergized?
42
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
43
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
Image cre dit: historia viation.co m
44
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems?
45
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems?
● How can competing theories of human cognition be reconciled in practical human models?
46
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems?
● How can competing theories of human cognition be reconciled in practical human models?
● How can contextual fragility of human models be bridged?
47
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers
48
Integration with Humans
Computer Science Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
● Humans as engineers
49
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers ● How do the inherent biases of each CPS
discipline affect design and development?
50
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers ● How do the inherent biases of each CPS
discipline affect design and development? ● What are the shared concepts, conflicts, and
omissions at the boundaries of disciplines?
51
Summary
● In CPS integration overcomes heterogeneity and complexity.● Foundations of integration:
– Components
– Models
● Emerging directions of integration: – Modeling methods
– Data
– Humans
● Takeaway: let's broaden the horizons of integration!