Universal Top SYNTEX Universal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture Building Functional Architecture Building Working Document Working Document Adam Maria Gadomski, Vittorio Rosato ENEA A Contribution to the SYNTEX Development for the IRRIIS WP 1.3 + WP 1.4 Meeting, Sankt Augustin, l7 May.06 (a proposal for discussion) IRRIIS Project Document, Wp. 1.3 Wp. 1.3 17 May 2006
15
Embed
Universal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture Building Working Document Adam Maria Gadomski, Vittorio Rosato ENEA A Contribution to the SYNTEX Development.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Universal Top SYNTEX Universal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture BuildingFunctional Architecture Building
Working DocumentWorking Document
Adam Maria Gadomski, Vittorio Rosato
ENEA
A Contribution to the SYNTEX Development for
the IRRIIS WP 1.3 + WP 1.4 Meeting, Sankt Augustin, l7 May.06
(a proposal for discussion)
IRRIIS Project Document, Wp. 1.3Wp. 1.3 17 May 2006
We assume the TOGA (Top-down Object-based Goal-oriented Approach) based universal approach to the specification of the Functional Architecture of SYNTEX. The TOGA methodology starts from the recognition in a problem the following top elements: • Intelligent Agent (IA)• its Domain of Activity connected with IA by Interaction relation•their Environment , what is illustrated on the fig.1.
Intel. Agent Domains of
Activity
Domains of Activity
Environment
Interaction
Fig.1 . An elementary Intelligent Agent’s World (IAW). Its basic couple is graphically represented as:
In the SYNTEX system a main IA is its human user.The details of the domain of activity have to be recognized yet. Its functions and configuration depends on the SYNTEXT-User Goal.
User/ Users
SYNTEXT System
SYNTEXT System
Environment
Interaction LCCIoperators
LCCI System/(s)
LCCI System/(s)
Simulated Environment
Interaction
Fig.2 : Top view on SYNTEX-User World Fig.3 The kernel of SYNTEX
Universal Top SYNTEX Functional ArchitectureUniversal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture
Goal-oriented Approach SYNTEXT-User GoalThe important goal of the SYNTEXT-User couple is a demonstration of the preselected scenarios of an Emergency Management (EM) and enabling their modifications in such waythat some previously accepted indicators of Efficacy and Quality of EM (EEM, QEM) could be improved. EEM and QEM are referred to the GEM (Goal of EM), and can also be called Quality of Service (QoS). Let us assume that the Goal of EM is to minimize total human, economical and environmental losses during the emergency. EEM and QEM depends on the specific properties {p} of the Scenario of EM, and their values are assessed by the user (as a human expert). The evaluation of QoS is done by human experts. SYNTEX Goal- The main goal of SYNTEXT is to simulate a certain large class of emergency events and to enable their interpretations by human experts.- The simulation results have to be usable by the MIT system (according to the MIT goals).The interpretation of the result has to provide data for the recognition of a Efficacy of the Emergency Management (EEM), its Quality (QEM) and modification of initial state of the simulated behavior of the Critical Infrastructure under analysis.
Universal Top SYNTEX Functional ArchitectureUniversal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture
The problem decomposition is composed of the decomposition of Generic Intelligent Agent World (IAW) which relies on the identification of its topology, i.e. invariant components/objects and interactions/interrelations.
In parallel, the dynamics of the interaction is presented in form of a generic scenario of the SYNTEX application. This scenario is decomposed/specialised according to the requirements resulting from the Goal of SYNTEXT-User system and, the goal of the SYNTEX simulator results from it. In consequence, we have Initial Top SYNTEX Application Scenario (fig.4) and the fig.2 can be specialized as presented on the fig.5.
Preparatory activity
Simulated event
Interpretation activity
Attention: Every next decomposition step requires a consensus on the previous one.
Fig. 4 First top-scenario executed by the couple: aSYNTEX manager agent (SM) and the human User of SYNTEX.
User/ Users
SYNTEXT System SYNTEXT System
Environment
Interaction
SM
SYNTEX Functional Domain
Fig. 5 User interacts directly with SM.
Top-down Problem Decopmposition
TOGA based Universal Top SYNTEX Functional ArchitectureTOGA based Universal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture
Fig. 6 First decomposition of the Domain of Activity of the SYNTEXT Tasks Manager agent.
It receives tasks from h-user and presents information on request.
H-user
Active SimulatorA-Tools and
interpretation Domain
Data/Information
SimulationModel
components
Autonomous SYNTEX management tools
Interaction: tasks, information
SYNTEX ManagerSYNTEX System
Interaction: tasks, information
Scenario is a time sequences of events and tasks/actions connected by consequence relations.
Events are distinguished arbitrarily selected sequences of changes in the Domain of Activity of an Intelligent Agent or Agent. Event specification is a decomposition of an event using events and actions.
Actions are specifications of changes caused by Agent/(Intelligent Agent) in its Domain of activity
Task is a specification of the request from IA to an agent which can be frequently realized by different actions.
Definitions
Agent – a functional unit which realize actions according to obtained tasks and possessed: domain information. knowledge (algorithms) and domain preferences.(IPK frame).
1. Actors tools (a-tool), into the simulator: tools of intelligent agents which are actors in the Simulator
2. SYNTEX management tools/agents( s-agents): autonomous tools/agents. They execute tasks of the User and SM.
3. User interpretation tools (i-tools): programs which transform simulation results to the forms most significative and useful for the interpretation of the final state of the variables represented the simulated domain.
Action algorithms:Action algorithms are specification how tasks can be executed. In the case of simple Agents, action algorithms are pre-prepared. In case of IA they can be also elaborated on the base of his IPK ( information, preferences, knowledge) during decisional-processes.
TOOLS - AGENTSTOOLS - AGENTS
Contribution to the SYNTEX Development
SYNTEX Core Scenario: Generic Top-Down decomposition and incremental development framework
Let us assume that a complex infrastructure ( or infrastructure system) is described by a number of the following technological measurable and/or observed reciprocally, independent attributes {x(t)} on t [0, T]. Some of xi(t) can be constant. Every time dependent xi(t) can be considered as a continuous or discreet function of time. These attributes allow to describe the physical structure S, possible internal processes P and a response on external changes in its environment, using a model M: M ⊢ A : {x0} {xT}.
where: {x0} describe an a given initial state, and {xT} denotes a result of the simulation using an algorithm A obtained from the generic model M .
We assume that the accuracy of M is sufficient for the simulation purposes/goals, it means,
|{xT} -{xT}Real| < {k},
where set {k} results from the definition of the general goal G of the simulation. Or in the other form, in a normed state space, we may write: || M - || < K.
The goal GI of the infrastructure is to provide a set of services for industrial systems and for the society in its Environment, under certain conditions. These service utility can be assessed according to their utility for the Environment by a.generalized Quality of Service factor QoS.
Description of the Interpretation
Universal Top SYNTEX Functional ArchitectureUniversal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture
Let us introduce a given perturbation set {} to the normal initial state of the system (a network) . In practice, it changes only a specific subset of {x0} but for the generality, we may write that the new state of will be {x0()} = {x0} + {} ,and A : {x0 ()} {xT ()}.
Let us assume that exists such {y} obtainable by known operators set that : <{x(t)}> [0, T]. {y}
and Quality of Service (QoS) be defined by a not formally known functional F such that: F: {y} QoS and QoS [0,1] for yn [- ,+] and n=1,..N.
The functional F is weakly defined but using an implicit expert knowledge Q we
may assess QoS knowing {y} and assuming that: Q F, hence:
Q : {y} QoS , for QoS [0,1] .
This mental transformation we call the interpretation of {y} and the set we call i-tools.
The interpretation of simulations enables identification and modification of assumed models, decisions & data.
Universal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture BuildingUniversal Top SYNTEX Functional Architecture Building
The cyclic application of simulation sessions of SYNTEX, so called “what-if simulations”, enable to identify the vulnerability of infrastructure , and to reduce it.
Starting from a given configuration: ({x}, A ) for every simulation cycle realized by the
composed transformation we obtain QoS, where = . A .
Assuming now that {} describes an unexpected jeopardize modification of the previous initial state of , and we may change {x0} then we have:
j: {x0j ({} )} QoSj for j =1, 2,…
In other words we may write: QoSj ({x0}j,{}, A , , ).
The main improving robustness(*) procedure of relies on the modification of {x0}j in
The Universal Top Functional Architecture of SYNTEX presented on the fig.10, enables to modify all attributes of QoSj
i.e:
{x0}j, {}, A , , .
This property should be also useful from the perspective of MIT development and testing.
Final Remarks
This is a Working Document for Discussion yet and the functional range of SYNTEX should be confronted with the realization possibilities dependent on the available software implementation platform and the requirements resulting from the MIT requirements and its functional specification.
For the references see: IRRIIS Tech. Annex, 2005.
TOGA Meta-theory: , http:// erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/