Modes. If the vehicle has different modes according to the definition 2.25.1. the stationary sound of the vehicle shall be determined for each mode, following the measurement and calculation principles above.
Modes. The First Party shall operate in either Opt-Out Option Mode or Service Provider Mode, but not both with respect to the same Covered Transaction.
Modes. Rewind arm function.
Modes. The different means of providing Paratransit Services, including Taxi, Group Van and SF Access.
Modes. We have conducted a study of approaches to complex critical systems development, and the requirements documents within DEPLOY, and arrived at the following: • Separation of concerns is a major approach to tackle the complexity of the systems development. • A large amount of critical systems are developed using a notion of operation modes. • All critical systems involve operations with important aspects of human activity (e.g. lives, finance) hence critical. And all of them inevitably have faults due to changing environmental conditions, hardware failures etc. A high percentage of requirements to such systems (up to 40% according to our study within DEPLOY) include fault tolerance as a way to mitigate the consequences of errors. • Requirements evolve, including FT. There were neither mode nor fault tolerance viewpoints in the state of the art Event-B development. The UML-B approach of statecharts is closely related to modal views. However, the statecharts drive the development by generating Event-B models as opposed to the mode views which facilitate the development by leaving the Event-B modelling activity with the user. On the fault tolerance side, we are aware of the work on ProR framework for tracing requirements, and we plan to integrate the tracing framework with our modelling approach. The Mode/FT Views approach is to assist the main Event-B development by an additional set of abstractions and a toolset to facilitate modal and fault tolerance development. We were motivated by the following stimuli: • Facilitate the modal and fault tolerance development in Event-B with a comprehensible modelling approach. • Stimulate the consideration of fault tolerance at the very first phases of development. • Explicitly covering mode and fault tolerance concerns, we wanted to improve the requirement traceability and fulfilment. • Help make planning decisions. Focusing the developer attention on specific aspects of development leads to better understanding of the problem and planning of the solution. • Provide consistent way of stepwise development of mode and FT aspects by a notion of views refinement.
Modes. The main objective in the tool design was to make a simple to use environment that can be used by a non-Event-B user (e.g. requirements engineer, fault tolerance specialist), yet provides the necessary functionality for an Event-B modeller. The tool was designed to be as much an external environment to Event-B models as possible. • We decided not to extend the Rodin database with modal and fault tolerance elements and to keep them as separate models. This led to less platform dependencies and easier maintenance. • The static check is separated from the Rodin SC, and realized by the GMF validation since it does not logically belong to Rodin / Event-B. However, since the proofs are a part of the modelling process, we properly extended the Rodin proof obligation generator. • A modal/FT documents form a refinement chain that mimics the Event-B refinement. This allows our tool to be used with the existing types of decomposition / modularisation. • During the initial experiments we have identified a possible need for multiple views on a single model. The tool supports this by keeping the references to the models in the views and not the opposite.
Modes. There is a wiki page[10] with details of the plug-in functionality, installation guide, and a simple example. • Papers on modal specifications [11] and [12] , and fault tolerance [13] . • Also, we are working on a medium-scale case study
Modes. Current status is version 1.0.0 for Rodin 2.0 In a long term we plan: • A few usability improvements • Integration with ProR requirements tracing framework • Event-B model generation and editing driven by FT patterns
Modes of conduct of Party B appears not to accord with the diligence and loyalty requirements in terms of his/her responsibilities and duties;
Modes. When the last mode is reached, the menu wraps around to the first mode. It is also used to make adjustments in the Advanced Menus. See: 13 • Menus PREVIOUS [←] This has the opposite effect of the NEXT button. It selects the previous mode or setting and also wraps around as above. It provides a faster way to access the upper modes. [MENU] - This optional button is used to enter and exit the Advanced Menus. This button is not required for normal operation. See: 13 • Menus [OK] - This optional button is used to confirm Advanced Menu choices. This button is not required for normal automatic operation. See: 13 • Menus Backlit LCD - Displays current mode and adjustments [MENU] Button - Optional advanced settings NEXT [→] Button - Selects next mode or setting [OK] Button - Confirms menu choice PREVIOUS [←] Button - Selects previous mode or setting Level A and B - Adjusts intensity of Outputs A and B Multi Adjust - Adjusts stimulation sensations Activity A and B LEDs - Output indicators showing relative output strength Radio LED - Not currently used Power LED - Lights up when power is ON Power Switch - Pull OUT and flip UP to turn ON and DOWN to turn OFF.
