Motivations. The evolutive maintenance (resp. corrective maintenance) has its origin in the DEPLOY description of work, and the various requests (resp. bug reports) listed by WP1-4 partners, developers and users. Since the DEPLOY project inception, various streams have been used to request new features or track known bugs: - dedicated trackers[10] [11] , - platform mailing lists [12] - DEPLOY WP9 mailing list. Maintenance tasks to perform are collected from the aforementioned streams and scheduled during WP9 meetings. These tasks are processed in the same way as the task planned in the description of work. The following table describes the main tasks (either performed or scheduled) motivating the evolutive maintenance: Origin Maintenance Task Done in 2010 Scheduled in 2011 DoW / WP1-4 partners Prover efficiency and integrity x x Deliverable D25 Test reports and test coverage x WP1-4 partners Updating fields of records x WP1-4 partners Team work x WP1-4 partners Edition x WP1-4 partners Increase platform stability x WP1-4 partners Comments everywhere [13] x WP1-4 partners Plug-in incompatibilities x WP1-4 partners Search in goal window [14] x WP1-4 partners Preferences for the automatic tactics [15] x WP1-4 partners Hierarchy / refinement view[16] x x Plug-in developers API to extend the Pretty Printer view [17] x Plug-in developers View the error log [18] x Plug-in developers Prover API x Plug-in developers A different update site for unstable plug-ins x End Users 64-bit Rodin for Mac x End Users Adding a replay proof command in the Event-B explorer [19] x End Users Having auto-completion in proof control [20] x End Users Displaying instantiated hypotheses [21] x End Users Displaying the inherited elements x
Motivations. The decision was taken in 2009 to include code generation as a project goal [5] . It had been recognised that support for generation of code from refined Event-B models would be an important factor in ensuring eventual deployment of the DEPLOY approach within their organisations. This was especially true for Bosch and Space Systems Finland (SSF). After receiving more detailed requirements from Bosch and SSF, it became clear we should focus our efforts on supporting the generation of code for typical real-time embedded control software.
Motivations. Main reasons for implementing teamwork are: • SVN Teamwork The reason to support compatibility of Rodin projects with Subversion was to allow Rodin users to share their projects and work on them together, as well as have the benefits of versioning and revision control, provided by the SVN system. It was difficult to work on models in parallel and manage changes made by different parties, especially for big and complex models. Other users expressed a concern on safety aspect of collaborative development, thus pointing out the benefits of centralised repository storage of the models under development on SVN. • Decomposition Difficulties in managing complex models (in particular for a large number of proof obligations) fed the idea of decomposing a model in a way that the resulting sub-models could be developed by different individuals. The decomposition process should be seen as a refinement step where the original properties and respective proof obligations should remain valid. With shared event and shared variable decomposition, these requirements are preserved, with the advantage of simplifying the overall development by dealing with sub-parts of the model at once in each sub-model.
Motivations. 8.2.1. Flow plug-in The flows tool was applied by Bosch in the development of the cruise control model to verify deadlock-freedom and liveness properties of the model. Being a sizable case-study, this was an important test for the ideas and techniques behind the plug-in. The general conclusion was that a tool of this kind is essential and the current version should be improved in many directions. This experience has uncovered a rather fundamental issues with the size and complexity of the generated proof obligations. These were the largest theorems ever generated in Rodin and the only positive aspect is that this helped to stress-test and debug the proof handling facilities of the Rodin. It was clear that such proof obligations can never be comfortably handled by Rodin tools (although there were some encouraging results in the application of ProB as a disprover for these kind of proofs) and it was decided that the approach to proof generation requires a complete redesign.
Motivations. The above works were motivated mainly to support the following three industrial deployments: • Siemens: enable Siemens to use ProB in their SIL4 development chain, replacing Atelier B for data validation (see above). • Bosch: provide animation and constraint-based deadlock detection for the Cruise Control. Indeed, proving absence of deadlocks is important to Bosch, as it means that the modelers have thought of every possible scenario. Currently, the proof obligation is so big (see above) that it is difficult to apply the provers and the feedback obtained during a failed proof attempt is not very useful. Using ProB to find concrete deadlock counterexample helps Bosch to find scenarios they have not yet thought about, and enables them to adapt the model. Once all cases have been covered, the proof of deadlock freedom can be done with Xxxxx'x provers (at least that was the case for the smaller of the two models; the bigger one is still contains deadlocks and is being improved). • SAP: provide a way to generate test cases using constraint-based animation; for more details see the description of the Model-based testing work[8] .
Motivations. The interest in MBT is to get the opportunity, by using the Event-B models, not only to formally validate specifications, but also to verify using test cases, that an existing implementation behaves as expected. Along with code generation, MBT (using Event-B) operates at the lower level of the envisaged rigorous engineering chain. In DEPLOY, this chain goes from high-level requirements down to software implementations via specification, architecture and refined designs. Deployment partners (DP), especially SAP (WP4), showed interest into having tool support for MBT. As a consequence, this topic was introduced in the refocus exercise (in the middle of the project [M24]) and was documented in the updated version DoW signed in August 2010 (see Task 9.10 there). The deployment partner SSF (WP3) had recently also shown interest in the MBT task. For the SAP use case, MBT is applied in the area of integration and system testing for service-oriented applications. First, a method for integration testing using SAP's message choreography models was developed using ProB. In the reported period (Feb. 2010 - Jan. 2011), SAP focused on UI system testing using high-level business processes. This required an adaptation of the first MBT approach to the new model types. In these new models, the associated test data constraints played a more prominent position which required also more effort from the tooling point of view.
Motivations. What is the customer doing at each stage? What actions are they taking to move themselves on to the next stage? Actions Customer initiated or service driven ? Initial engagem't Map out per service to identify what the journey looks like. This will enable improvements to be made to the service design, which will enhance the customer experience and result in more positive In achieving our vision of integrated service provision around the needs of customers the Alliance has established a 'cradle to grave' timeline which follows both the positive and negative milestones throughout the main lifestages. This ensures that our focus in on prevention and early intervention at each stage of a customers life cycle, and ensures that where there are barriers to positive life milestones that we can identify them early and intervene to prevent escalation. The concept of our customer journey follows the principles from early years collaborative work through to reshaping care for older people. The whole process will be underpinned by XXXXXX, but supported by a similar early intervention and prevention approach aimed right through adulthood. Figure 7 sets out the Customer Life Journey 'Cradle to Grave' timeline. This customer journey helps partners to identify where, when and what something is impacting on a child, adolescent or adult in reaching positive life milestones. Where an issue is identified, cross partner interventions will be in place to provide support around a Whole Systems Approach model of delivery. A key part of our vision is to streamline and improve the pace of intervention for each problem identified for each customer. This process will be enhanced through improved information sharing, intelligence and performance management. In designing and shaping our services around this model, partners will be able to target resources around prevention and towards the most vulnerable families in our communities.
Motivations. Fruits and vegetables (F&V) provide essential nutrients for growth and development in children, adolescents and adults. Diets rich in F&V have been shown to prevent certain types of cancer and reduce risks for cardiovascular diseases, Type II diabetes, and obesity.1-4 Despite the importance of F&V, consumption of recommended amounts of F&V is low in the United States.5-7 The Healthy People 2010 objectives aim for at least 75% of Americans to eat two or more daily servings of fruit, and for at least 50% of Americans to eat three or more servings of vegetables daily.8 However, data from 2009 indicate that only 32.5% of adults meet the recommendation for fruit consumption and 26.3% eat the recommended number of servings of vegetables.9 F&V intake is dependent on numerous factors, including financial means to purchase F&V and nutrition knowledge and competencies about F&V. Since F&V consumption is generally lower among low-income individuals6,10, the understanding of factors associated with F&V intake among individuals with low incomes, specifically recipients in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, is of specific interest in this project. Analyzing the impact of WIC programs on mother-child dyads is particularly important since approximately 32% of all years children under 5 years of age in the U.S. participated in WIC in 2009.11,12 Mother-child dyads are defined as a mother and one of her children. Specifically in Georgia, 31% of all 1-4 year olds were WIC recipients in 2007.13 In addition to receiving WIC food vouchers for specific food items, WIC recipients are required to attend nutrition education classes and have the opportunity to participate in the WIC Farmers‟ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). During the growing season, WIC recipients receive $10 to $30 worth of FMNP coupons to purchase fresh F&V from a local xxxxxx and they have an additional opportunity to learn about fruits and vegetables through this program. WIC clinics vary in terms of the nutrition education content and administration of the FMNP. The impact of the Georgia WIC FMNP on nutrition knowledge and competencies about F&V and fruit and vegetable consumption of mother-child dyads has never been formally evaluated.
Motivations. My studies in Physics Education Research (PER) at the University of Central Florida (UCF) began by observing the teaching practices of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) in the lab component of our algebra-based introductory mechanics class (Wilcox, Yang, & Chini, 2016). The lab component for this class is unique; it differs from the more traditional lab style that is taught in the calculus-based courses of the introductory sequence in that the algebra-based introductory mechanics lab component is a hybrid of discussion and lab. For roughly the first hour and fifteen minutes, groups of students complete worksheets modeled from the University of Maryland’s Open Source Tutorials (Elby, Scherr, Xxxxxxxx, & Xxxxxx, 2008) with word problems based on Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx’x context-rich written problems (2001). Following this discussion style portion of the class, there is a fifteen-minute group quiz. The remaining hour and twenty minutes is devoted to lab activities following Xxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxxxxx’s Investigative Science Learning Environment, or ISLE (2001). We call this discussion and lab hybrid format “mini-studio” for its resemblance to the studio classroom format, which is a class that combines lecture, discussion, and lab, in one setting. The mini-studio was developed with funding from the National Science Foundation Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education program, so it incorporates research-based instructional strategies that require GTAs to interact in different ways than in a traditional lab or recitation section. For example, in a traditional recitation section, one typically expects a GTA to be at the board showing students how to solve problems. However, in the Open Source Tutorials, GTAs are instructed to “not pick up a pen or pencil to show [the students] how to do something” (Redish, 2009). In regard to the lab portion, the ISLE method places a strong emphasis, as evidenced by the grading rubric focusing on scientific ability on the process of “doing science” in a lab instead of an outcome-driven, confirmatory lab (Xxxxxx & Xxx Xxxxxxxx, 2007). GTAs in mini-studios should allow their students to develop their own research question and the process with which they will answer that question. This practice is in contrast to a traditional lab where students may be told what the experimental question is and what they need to do to answer it. Thus, GTAs in mini- studios may need to show restraint and let their students go on divergent paths. As long ...
Motivations. The main evolutions of the Rodin platform are driven by the description of work for the DEPLOY project and the requirements expressed by industrial WP1 to WP4 partners or by advanced users during the lifecycle of the project. Beyond that, any user registered on SourceForge may record any encountered bug on the Rodin platform or request a new feature, using the dedicated trackers [3]. Depending on the category, the bug / feature is assigned to the WP9 partner who is in charge of processing it: Category Partner AnimB Xxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXX B2LaTeX University of Southampton Decomposition Systerel Event-B core Systerel Event-B interface Systerel Event-B POG Systerel Event-B provers Systerel Event-B static checker Systerel PRO-B Dusseldorf Renaming University of Southampton Requirements Dusseldorf Rodin platform Systerel Text editor Dusseldorf U2B Southampton The priorities are discussed during the WP9 meetings (bi-weekly management conference call, WP9 face-to-face meetings during DEPLOY workshops).
