Dokument-ID Dokumenttyp Verfasser/Autoren Herausgeber Haupttitel Abstract Auflage Verlagsort Verlag Erscheinungsjahr Seitenzahl Schriftenreihe Titel Schriftenreihe Bandzahl ISBN Quelle der Hochschulschrift Konferenzname Quelle:Titel Quelle:Jahrgang Quelle:Heftnummer Quelle:Erste Seite Quelle:Letzte Seite URN DOI Abteilungen
OPUS4-6083 Buch (Monographie) Becker, Basil; Giese, Holger Cyber-physical systems with dynamic structure : towards modeling and verification of inductive invariants Cyber-physical systems achieve sophisticated system behavior exploring the tight interconnection of physical coupling present in classical engineering systems and information technology based coupling. A particular challenging case are systems where these cyber-physical systems are formed ad hoc according to the specific local topology, the available networking capabilities, and the goals and constraints of the subsystems captured by the information processing part. In this paper we present a formalism that permits to model the sketched class of cyber-physical systems. The ad hoc formation of tightly coupled subsystems of arbitrary size are specified using a UML-based graph transformation system approach. Differential equations are employed to define the resulting tightly coupled behavior. Together, both form hybrid graph transformation systems where the graph transformation rules define the discrete steps where the topology or modes may change, while the differential equations capture the continuous behavior in between such discrete changes. In addition, we demonstrate that automated analysis techniques known for timed graph transformation systems for inductive invariants can be extended to also cover the hybrid case for an expressive case of hybrid models where the formed tightly coupled subsystems are restricted to smaller local networks. Potsdam Universitätsverlag Potsdam 2012 iv, 27 978-3-86956-217-9 urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-62437 Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH
OPUS4-5705 Dissertation Polyvyanyy, Artem Structuring process models One can fairly adopt the ideas of Donald E. Knuth to conclude that process modeling is both a science and an art. Process modeling does have an aesthetic sense. Similar to composing an opera or writing a novel, process modeling is carried out by humans who undergo creative practices when engineering a process model. Therefore, the very same process can be modeled in a myriad number of ways. Once modeled, processes can be analyzed by employing scientific methods. Usually, process models are formalized as directed graphs, with nodes representing tasks and decisions, and directed arcs describing temporal constraints between the nodes. Common process definition languages, such as Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) and Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) allow process analysts to define models with arbitrary complex topologies. The absence of structural constraints supports creativity and productivity, as there is no need to force ideas into a limited amount of available structural patterns. Nevertheless, it is often preferable that models follow certain structural rules. A well-known structural property of process models is (well-)structuredness. A process model is (well-)structured if and only if every node with multiple outgoing arcs (a split) has a corresponding node with multiple incoming arcs (a join), and vice versa, such that the set of nodes between the split and the join induces a single-entry-single-exit (SESE) region; otherwise the process model is unstructured. The motivations for well-structured process models are manifold: (i) Well-structured process models are easier to layout for visual representation as their formalizations are planar graphs. (ii) Well-structured process models are easier to comprehend by humans. (iii) Well-structured process models tend to have fewer errors than unstructured ones and it is less probable to introduce new errors when modifying a well-structured process model. (iv) Well-structured process models are better suited for analysis with many existing formal techniques applicable only for well-structured process models. (v) Well-structured process models are better suited for efficient execution and optimization, e.g., when discovering independent regions of a process model that can be executed concurrently. Consequently, there are process modeling languages that encourage well-structured modeling, e.g., Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) and ADEPT. However, the well-structured process modeling implies some limitations: (i) There exist processes that cannot be formalized as well-structured process models. (ii) There exist processes that when formalized as well-structured process models require a considerable duplication of modeling constructs. Rather than expecting well-structured modeling from start, we advocate for the absence of structural constraints when modeling. Afterwards, automated methods can suggest, upon request and whenever possible, alternative formalizations that are "better" structured, preferably well-structured. In this thesis, we study the problem of automatically transforming process models into equivalent well-structured models. The developed transformations are performed under a strong notion of behavioral equivalence which preserves concurrency. The findings are implemented in a tool, which is publicly available. 2012 urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59024 Institut für Informatik und Computational Science