Outils pour utilisateurs
pulsar_09
Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
| Les deux révisions précédentes Révision précédente Prochaine révision | Révision précédente | ||
|
pulsar_09 [2010/01/07 13:42] tigli |
pulsar_09 [2010/01/07 13:45] tigli |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ligne 1: | Ligne 1: | ||
| ====== Ma partie du rapport d'activité PULSAR 2009 ====== | ====== Ma partie du rapport d'activité PULSAR 2009 ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{https://rainbow.i3s.unice.fr/~tigli/publications/pulsar2009.doc|Rapport}} | ||
| ===== Multiple Services for Device Adaptive Platform for Scenario Recognition ===== | ===== Multiple Services for Device Adaptive Platform for Scenario Recognition ===== | ||
| Ligne 7: | Ligne 9: | ||
| Activity recognition and monitoring systems based on multi-sensor and multi-device approaches are more and more popular to enhance events production for scenario analysis. Underlying software and hardware infrastructures can be considered as static (no changes during the overall recognition process quasi-static (no changes during two reconfigurations of the process) or really dynamic (depending on dynamic appearance and disappearance of numerous sensors and devices in the scene, communicating with the system, during recognition process). | Activity recognition and monitoring systems based on multi-sensor and multi-device approaches are more and more popular to enhance events production for scenario analysis. Underlying software and hardware infrastructures can be considered as static (no changes during the overall recognition process quasi-static (no changes during two reconfigurations of the process) or really dynamic (depending on dynamic appearance and disappearance of numerous sensors and devices in the scene, communicating with the system, during recognition process). | ||
| In this last case, we need to partially and reactively adapt the application to the evolution of the environment, while preserving invariants required for the validity of the recognition process. | In this last case, we need to partially and reactively adapt the application to the evolution of the environment, while preserving invariants required for the validity of the recognition process. | ||
| + | |||
| In order to address such a challenge our researches try to federate the inherent constraints of platform devoted to action recognition, like SUP, with a service oriented middleware approach to deal with dynamic evolutions of the system infrastructure. Recent results, using a Service Lightweight Component Architecture (SLCA) [28] to compose services for device and Aspects of Assembly (AA) to adapt them in a reactive way [27], present interesting prospects to deal with multi-devices and variable systems. They provide a user-friendly separated description for adaptations that shall be applied and composed at runtime as soon as the corresponding required devices are present (in context-sensitive security middleware layer for example [40]). They also underline performances and response times that allow reactive adaptation on appearance and disappearance of devices. However, although composition between these adaptations can verify proved properties, the use of blackbox components in the composition model of SLCA doesn’t allow extracting a model of their behavior. Thus, existing approaches don’t really succeed to ensure that the usage contract of these components is not violated during application adaptation. Only a formal analysis of the component behavior models associated with a well sound modeling of composition operation will allow us to secure the respect of the usage contracts. | In order to address such a challenge our researches try to federate the inherent constraints of platform devoted to action recognition, like SUP, with a service oriented middleware approach to deal with dynamic evolutions of the system infrastructure. Recent results, using a Service Lightweight Component Architecture (SLCA) [28] to compose services for device and Aspects of Assembly (AA) to adapt them in a reactive way [27], present interesting prospects to deal with multi-devices and variable systems. They provide a user-friendly separated description for adaptations that shall be applied and composed at runtime as soon as the corresponding required devices are present (in context-sensitive security middleware layer for example [40]). They also underline performances and response times that allow reactive adaptation on appearance and disappearance of devices. However, although composition between these adaptations can verify proved properties, the use of blackbox components in the composition model of SLCA doesn’t allow extracting a model of their behavior. Thus, existing approaches don’t really succeed to ensure that the usage contract of these components is not violated during application adaptation. Only a formal analysis of the component behavior models associated with a well sound modeling of composition operation will allow us to secure the respect of the usage contracts. | ||
| + | |||
| In this axis, we propose to rely on a synchronous modeling of component behavior and component assembly to allow the usage of model checking techniques to formally validate services composition. | In this axis, we propose to rely on a synchronous modeling of component behavior and component assembly to allow the usage of model checking techniques to formally validate services composition. | ||
| We began to consider this topic in 2008 through a collaborative action (SynComp) between Rainbow team at University of Nice Sophia Antipolis and INRIA Pulsar team. Within the Rainbow team, SLCA/AA experimental platform called WComp is dedicated to the reactive adaptation of applications in the domain of ubiquitous computing. During this collaboration, the management of concurrent access in WComp has been studied as a main source of disturbance for the invariant properties. A modeling of the behavior of components and of their accesses in a synchronous model has been defined in WComp. | We began to consider this topic in 2008 through a collaborative action (SynComp) between Rainbow team at University of Nice Sophia Antipolis and INRIA Pulsar team. Within the Rainbow team, SLCA/AA experimental platform called WComp is dedicated to the reactive adaptation of applications in the domain of ubiquitous computing. During this collaboration, the management of concurrent access in WComp has been studied as a main source of disturbance for the invariant properties. A modeling of the behavior of components and of their accesses in a synchronous model has been defined in WComp. | ||
| + | |||
| This approach allows us to benefit from model checking techniques to ensure that there are no unpredictable states of WComp components on concurrent access. This year, during his training, Vivien Fighiera (already involved in the SynComp action), has completed the theoretical work done in SynComp. He studied how to prove safety properties regarding WComp component models relying on the NuSMV [52] model checker. This year, the collaboration between Rainbow and Pulsar has been strengthened since Jean-Yves Tigli is a full time researcher at Pulsar team since September, in sabbatical year sponsored by INRIA. Now, we plan to modelize the overall assembly of WComp components with a synchronous approach to allow the usage of model checking techniques to formally validate application design. In order to obtain results based on experimental scenarios to evaluate SynComp improvements for adaptive recognition process, we plan to integrate SUP platform as a software services provider. | This approach allows us to benefit from model checking techniques to ensure that there are no unpredictable states of WComp components on concurrent access. This year, during his training, Vivien Fighiera (already involved in the SynComp action), has completed the theoretical work done in SynComp. He studied how to prove safety properties regarding WComp component models relying on the NuSMV [52] model checker. This year, the collaboration between Rainbow and Pulsar has been strengthened since Jean-Yves Tigli is a full time researcher at Pulsar team since September, in sabbatical year sponsored by INRIA. Now, we plan to modelize the overall assembly of WComp components with a synchronous approach to allow the usage of model checking techniques to formally validate application design. In order to obtain results based on experimental scenarios to evaluate SynComp improvements for adaptive recognition process, we plan to integrate SUP platform as a software services provider. | ||
| + | |||
| The SUP platform gathers a set of modules devoted to design applications in the domain of activity recognition. WComp is aimed at assembling services which evolve in a dynamic and heterogeneous environment. Indeed, the services provided by SUP can be seen as complex high-level services whose functionalities depend on the SUP treatments; this latter dealing with the dynamic change of the environment. Thus, considering SUP services as web services for devices for example, the devices associated with SUP services will be discovered dynamically by WComp and used with other heterogeneous devices. | The SUP platform gathers a set of modules devoted to design applications in the domain of activity recognition. WComp is aimed at assembling services which evolve in a dynamic and heterogeneous environment. Indeed, the services provided by SUP can be seen as complex high-level services whose functionalities depend on the SUP treatments; this latter dealing with the dynamic change of the environment. Thus, considering SUP services as web services for devices for example, the devices associated with SUP services will be discovered dynamically by WComp and used with other heterogeneous devices. | ||
pulsar_09.txt · Dernière modification: 2010/01/07 13:45 par tigli
Outils de la page
Sauf mention contraire, le contenu de ce wiki est placé sous les termes de la licence suivante : CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
