Re: [SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:34:44 +0100

On 2016-02-26 10:33 , David MENTRE wrote:
> Le 26/02/2016 09:43, Peter Bernard Ladkin a écrit :

>> Another reason is the prevelance of MathLab/Simulink in this domain. Simulink is now an executable
>> specification language. Since there is one supplier, it is de facto unambiguous (there is just one
>> simulator, so the single meaning of a Simulink spec is precisely what that simulator does with the
>> spec).

> Some people have even formally defined the semantics of Simulink or a subset of it:

I think what this says is that some people have interpreted in a formal way what they think Simulink diagrams should ideally mean. Whether they do mean that or not is another question.

It's laudable, but it's a long way from what "formally defined the semantics of Simulink" would mean to practicing engineers. That would further entail that (a) one of those semantics had been independently assessed as adequate, (b) MathWorks had accepted it, and (c) MathWorks had demonstrated that their simulator (the execution engine for Simulink) conformed to the semantics.

> Except that semantics of MathLab/Simulink is very fragile, e.g. order of execution of state machines
> on a diagram depends on the order they were drawn.


PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Fri Feb 26 2016 - 12:35:00 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:07 CEST