Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing communicating transaction processes by supervisory control theory

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A Communicating Transaction Process (CTP) is a computational model that serves as a high level specification language for reactive embedded system components and their interactions. It consists of a network of communicating processes coordinating their behaviors via common actions and the common actions are refined as a set of guarded Message Sequence Charts (MSCs). There has been little work devoted to developing CTP models systematically. This paper takes the first step towards bridging this gap. In our work, communicating processes of embedded components are modeled and controlled as Discrete-Event Systems (DES). The control logic among communicating components is derived by Supervisory Control Theory (SCT), so as to guarantee that the communicating processes meet all predefined constraints and possess other desirable system behavioral properties. The control logic is then translated into propositional formulas for guarded MSCs which then results in a CTP model with guaranteed behavioral properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Åkesson K, Flordal H, Fabian M (2002) Exploiting modularity for synthesis and verification of supervisors. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress on automatic control, Barcelona, Spain, 2002

  2. Balarin F, Lavagno L, Passerone C, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, Watanabe Y, Yang G (2002) Concurrent execution semantics and sequential simulation algorithms for the metropolis meta-model. In: International symposium on hardware/software codesign (CODES), May 6–8, pp 13–18

  3. Cadence Berkeley Laboratories (2004) The SMV model checker, www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~kenmcmil/smv

  4. Brandin BA, Charbonnier FE (1994) The supervisory control of the automated manufacturing system of the AIP. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computer integrated manufacturing and automation technology. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, USA, pp 319–324

  5. Cao X-R, Cohen G, Giua A, Wonham WM, van Schuppen JH (2002) Unity in diversity, diversity in unity: retrospective and prospective views on control of discrete event systems. Discr Event Dyn Syst: Theory Appl 12(3):253–264

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cassandras C, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Boston, USA

  7. Chandra V, Huang Z, Kumar R (2003) Automated control synthesis for an assembly line using discrete event system control theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern—Part C: Appl Rev 33(2):284–289

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen G, Gaubert S, Quadrat JP (1991) Algebraic tools for performance evaluation in discrete event systems. In: Discrete event dynamic systems: analyzing complexity and performance in the modern world. IEEE Press, New York, USA

  9. Gajski D, Zhu J, Dmer R, Gerstlauer A, Zhao S (2000) SpecC: Specification language and methodology. Kluwer, Boston, USA

  10. Gohari P, Wonham WM (2000) On the complexity of supervisory control design in the RW framework. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern—Part B: Cybern 30(5):643–652

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grotker T, Liao S, Martin G, Swan S (2002) System design with system C. Kluwer, Boston, USA

  12. Harel D, Kugler H, Marelly R, Pnueli A (2002) Smart play-out of behavioral requirements. International conference on formal methods in computer aided design (FMCAD), pp 378–398

  13. Ho YC (1992) Discrete event dynamic systems: analyzing complexity and performance in the modern world. IEEE Press, New York, USA

  14. Holloway LE, Krogh BH, Giua A (1997) A survey of petri net methods for controlled discrete event systems. Discr Event Dyn Syst: Theory Appl 7(2):151–190

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holzmann GJ (1997) The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(5):279–295

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Telecommunication Union (1996) Z.120: Message Sequence Charts, http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com10/languages, 1996.

  17. Jafari MA, Darabi H, Boucher TO, Amini A (2002) A distributed discrete event dynamic model for supply chain of business enterprises. Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on discrete event systems (WODES'02), pp 279–285

  18. Kozák P, Wonham WM (1996) Design of transaction management protocols. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 41(9):1330–1335

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SH, Wong KC (2002) Structural decentralized control of concurrent discrete-event systems. Eur J Contr 8(5):477–491

    Google Scholar 

  20. Peterson JL (1981) Petri net theory and the modeling of systems. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA

  21. de Queiroz MH, Cury JER (2000) Modular supervisory control of large scale discrete event systems. Discr Event Syst: Anal Control. Kluwer, Boston, USA, pp 103–110

  22. Ramadge PJ, Wonham WM (1987) Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM J Control Optimization 25(1):206–230

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ramadge PJ, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete-event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ricker S, Sarkar N, Rudie K (1996) A discrete-event system approach to modeling dexterous manipulation. Robotica 14(5):515–526

    Google Scholar 

  25. Roychoudhury A, Thiagarajan P (2003) Communicating transaction processes. IEEE international conference on applications of concurrency in system design (ACSD), June 18–20, pp 157–166

  26. Roychoudhury A, Thiagarajan P (2003) An executable specification language based on message sequence charts. Formal methods at the crossroads: From panacea to foundational support, LNCS 2757. Springer Verlag

  27. Schmidt K, Reger J, Moor T (2004) Hierarchical control for structural decentralized DES. Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on discrete event systems (WODES'04), pp 289–294

  28. Su R, Wonham WM (2004) Supervisor reduction for discrete-event systems. Discr Event Dyn Syst: Theory Appl 14(1):31–53

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wong KC, Wonham WM (1998) Modular control and coordination of discrete event systems. Discr Event Dyn Syst: Theory Appl 8(3):247–297.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wonham WM (2005) Supervisory control of discrete event systems and XPTCT software (Version 85). Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, http://www.control.toronto.edu/DES

  31. Wonham WM, Ramadge PJ (1987) On the supremal controllable sub-language of a given language. SIAM J Contr Optim 25(3):637–659

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 3G4

    L. Feng & W. M. Wonham

  2. School of Computing, National University of Singapore, S16 Level 5, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117543, Singapore

    P. S. Thiagarajan

Authors
  1. L. Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. M. Wonham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. S. Thiagarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Feng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feng, L., Wonham, W.M. & Thiagarajan, P.S. Designing communicating transaction processes by supervisory control theory. Form Method Syst Des 30, 117–141 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-006-0023-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-006-0023-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation