aadl manual

Options that the client is responsible to pay for are asterisked. AADL provides funding for wheelchairs through contracts with AADL Recycle Wheelchair Vendors. See Policy WM-02: Eligibility Criteria and Policy WM-11: Definitions for category definitions. Wheelchairs are designated as Standard, Standard Plus or Upgrade Wheelchairs according to the amount of funding provided by AADL and costs shared with the client. See Policy WM-11: Definitions for designation descriptions. Grants are subject to cost share and the client pays all costs above the grant amount. Grant amounts are dependent on the client’s eligibility and are listed in the APL under each category. See policy WM-02 for further information on eligibility. Grant funds are paid directly to the vendor once the wheelchair has been supplied to the client (service date).Vent trays are provided on manual wheelchairs on a case-by-case basis. Authorizers must discuss vent tray requirements with the AADL Equipment Specialist for direction. Category B and C requests that indicate a comparable substitute is not appropriate, must explain why on the 1251 form. Clients are responsible for cost of repairs to any option chosen and not funded by AADL. Specific wheelchair models may have additional eligibility or prior approval requirements; these are listed in the W-APL Those who are able to use a walker for short distances (e.g., within their home) are considered part time users and are eligible for a Category A only. Designed by: AHZ Design Solutions. VIEW THE PARTS MANUALS Parts price lists Find our price lists here. Get the right part number in our Parts Manuals. PARTS PRICE LISTs Our online configuration tool is on the way Our team is currently working on an online configuration tool that will help you fill out Motion Composites forms without risking making a mistake or forgetting to include something. Stay tuned! Like what you see? Subscribe to our newsletter. We don’t spam. Send Enter an email.

• aadl manual, aadl manual m, aadl manual c, aadl manual h, aadl manual wheelchair assessment tool, aadl manual cushion, aadl manual wheelchair eligibility assessment, aadl manual wheelchair specs, aadl manual b, aadl manual walkers, aadl manual, aadl manual, aadl manual m, aadl manual forms, aadl manual program, aadl manual b, aadl manual l, aadl manual r, aadl manual x, aadl manual c, aadl manual w, aadl manual alberta, aadl manual, adl manual, aad manual sync, aadl program manual, aadl respiratory manual.

Continue acting safely to prevent the spread while supporting Alberta businesses. Find out how. The manual is broken into sections for easier reference. Approved product lists are also available. The program manual also includes policies and procedures for each benefit area and approved product lists. The manual is broken into sections for easier reference. Manual M: medical-surgical benefitsThe manual is broken into sections for easier reference. The program manual also includes policies and procedures for each benefit area and approved product lists. The manual is broken into sections for easier reference. The manual is broken into sections for easier reference. RTOSes; Ellidiss ships Ocarina, and integrates its parser to check the legality of. AADL models. ParisTech. Lab session on the modeling of Distributed Real-Time Embedded SystemUniv. Course on software architecture, Ocarina is used to generate Petri. Nets from AADL models. ISAE: Course on Architecture. Design of Real-time Systems. We recommendMBDA and Astrium, targeting an Ada Ravenscar runtime. Hugues is in charge of theASSERT. TASTE completes ASSERT by adding new features and support. These include cookies that keep track of your session ID when exploring our site and also assist in security and login authentication. See list of cookies We also use third-party social media and advertising cookies to offer you social media functionalities and personalized ads on other sites. Do you accept these cookies and any processing of personal data involved? If the wheelchair requested is not available from the recycle pool, AADL purchases the wheelchair as new. Products on the APL are reviewed regularly through an AADL Product Evaluation Review, with timing around contract dates. Refer to Policy Z-03 in the Recycle Services Manual for further information on product evaluations. See Policy WM-08 Ownership and Responsibilities - Repairing and Returning AADL Wheelchairs.

Most of the k nown feasibility tests have been elaborated during the last 30 years. Feas ibility tes ts pr ovide a way to compute different perform ance criteria suc h as worst case thread response time. But each criterion requires that the target s ystem fulfills a set of specific assumptions that ar e applicability c onstraints. Thus, due to th e large num ber of feasibility tests and due to the large num ber of applicability cons traints, it may be dif ficult for a designer to choose the relevant feasibility test for a given architecture to analyze. These design-patterns model usual c ommunication paradigms of multitasked real-time software. For each d esign-pattern, we have ident ified which feasibility tests the designer can compute to perf orm the verification of h is AADL architecture. This approach had t wo weaknesses. First, we have assumed that the designer is able to check that h is AADL architect ure is compliant with the design- pattern he has chosen. Second, for a given AADL design-pattern, m any feasibility tests ma y exist. It implies that only defining a set of design- patterns ma y not be enough to really help the designer. In this article, we investigate how to automatically check that an A ADL architecture is compliant to a design-pattern and a s et of feasibility tes ts. We show how to explicitl y model the relationships between an architectural design-pattern and the compliant feasibility tests. From these models, we apply a model-based engineering process to generate a This article is organized as f ollows. I n section 2, we describe t he set of design-patterns we consider. W e also i ntroduce AADL, the architecture language we promote for the modeling of both the architecture to analyze and our set of design-patterns. Section 3 presents Platypus, the model-based engineerin g tool we use to generate the decision tool. T hen, section 5 is de voted to related works and we conclude and pres ent future works in section 6. 2.

By continuing to browse this site, you agree to the use and storage of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy Privacy Policy. You may modify your cookie settings at any time. You may find detailed information about how cookies are used on this site by viewing our “Cookie Policy”. If you continue to use the website, you agree to the use of cookies. If you have any questions about the collection of this information, you can contact Alberta Aids to Daily Living Program, Telus House, 13th Floor, 10020-100 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0N3 Telephone: 780-427-0731 Fax: 780-422-0968 Palliative Please print clearly and ensure all fields are filled out. Only one benefit per QFR. QFR fax: 780-644-1521 AADL Catalogue No. Attach required forms and documentation, as defined in the AADL Program Manual for the appropriate benefit area. Please refer to the QFR Checklist to ensure that the request meets basic eligibility criteria. To request an appeal, mark below and resubmit this form to the QFR fax line. Additional information may be attached for review.To submit, follow the instructions on the form. We show how to explicitl y model the relationships between an AADL architectural model and the analytical methods proposed b y the real-tim e scheduling theory. From these models, we appl y a model-base d engineering process t o generate a decision tool which is able to decide from an AADL architecture model what are the feasibility tests that the designer can apply. Performance verifications of em bedded real-time architectures can be perform ed with the real-time scheduling theory. Real-time scheduling theory provides analytical methods, called feasibility tests which make possible timing constraints verifications. However, it appears that in many practical cases no such analysis is performed with this theor y althou gh experi ence shows that it could be profitable. Indeed this t heory is not easy to understand and t o apply for many engineers.

AADL is used t o design and analyse software and hardware architecture of embedded real-time systems. Many tools provide support for the modelling and t he analysis of AADL models. An updated list of supporting tools can be found on the official AADL web site. We proposed four AADL architecture design-patterns called “Synchronous da ta flow”, “Ravenscar”, “BlackBoard” and “Queued Buffer”. A detailed In this s ynchronization schem a, the thr ead dispatch is not affected by the inter-thread communications that are expressed by pure data flows. Each thr ead reads input da ta ports at dispatch time and writes output data ports at completion time. Each thread will always ex ecute, r ead and write data at pre-defined times, even if useless. In order to introduce more flexibility, asynchronous inter-thread com muni- cations can be proposed. An exam ple of such a run-tim e environm ent is given by the R avenscar profile. I t is a set of Ada program restrictions usually enf orced at compilation time, which guarantee that the sof tware architecture is real-time scheduling theory compliant. Ravenscar is an Ada subset where real-time applications are composed of a set of threads and shar ed data. Real-time scheduling theory usually models such a shared resource as a semaphore to handle concurrent access. The black board design- pattern im plements a readers-writers synchronization protocol. At a given time, only one writer can get the access to the blackboard in order to update the data component, as opposed to the readers which are allowed to read the data component simultaneously. The usual implementation of this prot ocol im plies that readers and writers do not perform the same s emaphore access, thus, it requires extra anal ysis. 2.4 Queued bu ffer design-pattern In the blackboard design-pattern, at any time, only the last w ritten message is made available to the threads.

AADL Real Time design-patt erns During the last decades, a lot of em phasis has been given to software modeling techniques, in a continuous move from tr aditional coding activities to higher level of abstractions. First step in th is advancement has been the generalized usage of O bject Or iented paradigm s in modeling languages, es pecially throug h class diagrams. Such a represen tation is perfect for static data modeling and meta-modeling activities, but is not usu ally appropriate to h ighlight dynamic interactions of system and software architectures. That's why components appeared in a second step, which exte nd the OO model with concepts of provided and required interfaces (black box view) and internal com position ( white box view). With components, it bec omes easier to describe functional interactions between well identifie d subsystems and to manage com plex system and software architectures in a modular way. However, as far as real-time s ystems are concerned, not only the applicative architecture must be described, but also its interaction with the underlying executive. This aspect is not supported by simple component based models, thus a third step can be identified by the availability of categorized components. This categori zation aim s at providing a stronger semantics to enrich the basic concept of component. As an example, a thread is a component which ca n be scheduled by the run-time executive. Nevertheless, although it becom es now e asier to describe real-time architectures, their validation still remains a subject of investigation. That is why, the next step in the im provement of the development process of real-time sy stems consists in providing to the end user a set of predefined composite constructs that match known real-time analysis s olutions. The composite constructs we have studied correspond to th e various inter-thread communication paradigms that can be a pplied in an AADL architecture and can be seen as real-time design-patterns.

As an exam ple, if all constraints of the C1 m eta-model are satisfied, then, the C1 test checker result is tr ue. It means that the designer can use the C1 feasibilit y test in or der to evaluate the performance of its arc hitecture model. 4.3 Example of the Synchronous data flo w design-pattern In the pr evious section, we have pres ented the overall approach w hich allo ws a des igner to decide which feasibilit y tests he can apply on a g iven AADL model compliant to one of the design-patterns presented in section 2. In the sequel, we illustrate the approach with the simplest design-pattern: the Synchronous data flow design-pattern. F irst, we present an example of feasibility test that can be applied on the Synchronous data flow. Then, we present the EX PRESS m odels which allow Platypus to check an AADL model. Finally, we prese nt a screenshot of the Platypus output. 4.3.1 Performance analysis of the S ynchronous data flow design-pattern From an AADL model compliant to the Synchronous data flow design-pattern, we c an perform performance analysis based on real-tim e scheduling theory. Each tim e the threa d i is released, it has to do a job whose execution tim e is bounded by Ci units of time. This job has to be ended before Di units of time after the thread wake up time. Some algebraic methods can provide a proof that a model compliant to the Synchronous data f low design-pattern will m eet its periodic thread performance requirements. Scheduling algorithms allow the designer to compute scheduling simulations of the architecture to analyze. Usually, simulations can n ot lead to a proof. The worst case response time feasibility test consists in comparing the worst case response time of each thread with its deadline. Joseph, Pandi a, Audsley et al.Figures 6, 7 and 8 pr esent the three EXPRESS models (schemas) that are required to produce the decision tool able to check if a given AADL model is compliant to the Synchronous data flow design-pattern.

From section 2.1, we know that onl y one type of component is used in this design-pattern: AADL thread components. The Architecture schema also defines the components t hat are part of the ex ecution environment (e.g. scheduler) and that required for the analysis. This s chema also includes a model of the applicability c onstraints of the feasibility tests. Remem ber that thes e constraints must be met by the AADL architecture to anal yze. These feasibility test c onstraints are store d in separate schemas. Figure 7 shows a part of these schemas.The top p ane shows the schem a instance editor containing three periodic threads. These three instances are extracted from the AADL model and constitute the curr ent architecture. N ote that the current prototype does not handle AADL files: the architecture model is loaded fr om STEP files. Many ot her approaches also investigated how to perform such verifications. UML toget her with its standard constraint language OCL could be used for the purpose of designing and building feasibility test checkers. But as far as we know, our approach has not been investigated with UML tools.The proposed language is called REAL ( REAL stands for Requirement Enforc ement Analysis Language). REAL is developed b y Telecom-Paris-Tech and ISAE. It is an annex of the AADL standard. This language is the n specifically des igned for the modeling of real-time architectures. REAL allows to express various type of constraints on AAD L architecture and th eir authors have shown tha t it can express some of the applicability constraints o f the real-time scheduling theory. The first versions of this m odelling approach def ined a quite basic concept of component (called HOOD objects) w hich aimed at representing more or less an Ada 83 package.

Some real-t ime ex ecution platform s provide communication features which allow all written messages to be stored in a buf fer. AADL also proposes such a feature with event data ports. The Queued buffer design-pattern models suc h a communication. For this des ign-pattern, an analysis tool should provide some means to perform buffer dimensioning verifications. 2.5 Pattern notation Each design-pattern presented above is a lways composed of the same items, according to the design-pattern languag e we are using. In this section, we have pr esented four AA DL design-patterns that are compliant with the real-time scheduling theory. In the next section, we present For such a purpose, data schemas are specified with entity descriptions and co nstraints. The possibility to add constraints allows the specification of domain rules. Constraints can be either local or global. From a d ynamic point of v iew, a data set is considered as conf orm to an EXPRES S schema if all local and global constraints specified within the schema are satisfied. As an exam ple, consider the sim ple EXPRESS model given in figure 2. T his model is made of t wo schemas. The first schema, named Architecture, specifies a periodic thread concept wi th a deadline and a period. First of all, Platypus is a ST EP environment, allowing data m odeling with the EXPRESS language and the implementation of STEP exchange components automatically generated from EXPRESS models. From this point of view, Plat ypus is a typical ST EP based tool with an EXPRESS editor and checker, and a STEP file reader, writer and chec ker. Modelling of a thread constraint Platypus is also an object oriented developm ent tool. Thanks to Pharo, Platypus is a n hybrid tool. On one hand, it allows very pr ecise data specification and manipulation of statically t yped objects. On the other hand, associated with code gen erators, it allows rapid system prototyping and efficient code maintenance.

Pl atypus is developed to be a schem a mapping t ool allowing the specification of m apping rules between source and target schemas. Mapping rules are designed with EXPR ESS and can be interpreted or translated to Sm alltalk. Fig 3. AADL model analyser overview 4. EXPRESS modeling of feasibility tests and architecture Let see now how to model both feasi bility tests and architectural des ign-pattern with EXPRESS. Given a feasibility test F T, it is possible to formally specify which applicability constraints the architecture m odel has to satisfy for the feasibil ity test FT to be applicable. This set of constraints can be spec ified in a FT specific meta-model. The important point is that this m eta-model specifies all the concepts needed in order to build a simplified AADL parser and to chec k AADL models. Each of them is a specialization of the Architectures meta- model and is specif ic to a particular feasibility test. Such a feasibility test meta- model specifies the constraints which are t o be satisfied for the r elated feasibi lity test to be applicable. In other words, if an Architectures meta-model i nstance built from an AADL model satisf ies all constraints specified b y a feasibility test meta-model, it means that the related feasibility test is applicable to the AADL model. 4.2 Th e prototype implementation Fig 5. The model checker implementatio n The prototype is made of an AADL parser and of feasibility test check ers. The AADL parser is classically implemented f rom an ADDL gram mar and is made to build instances of the Architecture meta- model. This AADL parser is dedicated to our design- patterns: it is only able to parse AAD L models that are composed of the AAD L component c ategories of our design-patterns. Each test checker is automatically built f rom the c orresponding feasibility test meta-model. From a particular AADL model (see figure 4), an AADL meta-model instance is built by the parser, then, each test check er evaluates it.

In both cases, the original concepts and principles of the HOOD methodology have b een kept, and specific composite constructs have been identified i n order to support properly Ada 95 tagged types or Ravenscar cyclic, sporadic and protecte d objects. For such a purpose, they h ave propose d an engineering process based on a meta-model called RCM (RCM stands for Ravenscar Com putational Model).From these EXPRESS models, we apply a m odel-based engineering process to generate a dec ision tool which is able to identify t he c ompliant feasibility tests the designer is allowed to compute. The current decis ion tool i s a prototype inside the Platypus e nvironment. Cheddar is an Ada tool which aim s at performance analysis of real-time architectures. It includes numerous feasibility tests and m ost of the most classical scheduling algorithms of the real-time scheduling theory. Cheddar is already able to perform verifications of AADL models but toda y, Cheddar’s users have to choose which feasibility tests to a pply to the ir A ADL models. The integration of the dec ision tool pro posed in t his article will increase Cheddar’s usability. A second possible extension of the wor k presented in this artic le w ould a ddress the type of analysis t he decision tool is able to produce. Indeed, in the current approac h, we only check that a given architecture model is conform to a given design- pattern. If the architectural model is conforming to the design-pattern, the tool is able to list th e compliant f easibility tests.The advantage of reusing some of these patterns is that they have already been analyzed in details with Cheddar.. The SMART Project: Multi-Agent Scheduling Simulation of Real-time Architectures Conference Paper Full-text available Feb 2014 Pierre Dissaux Olivier Marc Stephane Rubini Hai Nam Tran The ongoing SMART collaborative project addresses modeling and analysis techniques for software intensive real-time systems.

The AADL modeling language has been selected to describe multi-thread, multi-partition, multi-processor and multi-core architectures. This paper focuses on the use of the Marzhin simulator that is based on a Multi-Agent technology for providing scheduling analysis results of real-time systems. This simulator is integrated in the AADL Inspector product and can also be used to animate realistic 3D animations. View Show abstract Position Paper: Need for Architecture Description Language with Standardized Well Defined Meaning for Architecture Centric Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems Article Bruce Lewis System complexity, especially from the perspective of the dynamics of system interaction, is rapidly accelerating as computers are used to integrate applications at each level of system execution, from subcomponents to systems to systems of systems. This new complexity is expressing itself in the cost of system integration and the issues of reliability, dependability and safety, as well as overall system performance. To avoid very significant costs and risks to the program, we must virtually integrate these systems before building them, which is not easy to do with all the complexities of computer system interaction. In addition, due to the complexity of large systems and the lack of funding to adequately test them, we must enhance reliability through additional analytical and formal verifications. We must understand these systems from a consistent model, integrating lower level models with perhaps domain specific languages of specification, into an analytical architectural framework. At any time during the lifecycle of the system, this architectural model reflects the current state of system development. From it, we drive many forms of analysis to determine architectural compliance to system constraints and requirements.

This system model must be architectural and component based if we are to understand the interactions, impact of change, and the emergent properties. Architectural analyses for Cyber-Physical systems will add additional complexities to the expression and analysis of systems. To be effective in addressing these systems for analysis, a similar capability will be required. Cyber-Physical system models and analyses themselves will not integrate or be consistent without being formed against a common, standardized, well defined architecture description language for understanding compositional effects, cross contractor integration, incremental development and multi-dimensional analysis. Hence the use of such a language is critical to the goal of Cyber-Physical virtual integration. This has served us up to this point, especially with the help of very senior, very smart people who can find the issues that surface during integration. However, this brings up the issue of what testing is not finding in these complex systems as well as the cost and schedule impact of making the system work. The issue of cost of integration of complex systems is being recognized especially in the aviation industry. The scale and heterogeneous nature of Cyber-Physical systems seem even more complex. View Show abstract Virtual Integration of Cyber-Physical Systems by Verification Article Jan 2010 Panagiotis Manolios Vasilis Papavasileiou View Meta-H User's Manual, Version 1 Jan 1998 S Vestal S. Vestal. Meta-H User's Manual, Version 1.27, 1998, download at However, developing and maintaining a measurement software for each domain specific modeling language is costly. Our contribution is a model-driven measurement approach. This measurement approach is model-driven from two viewpoints: 1) it measures models of a model-driven development process; 2) it uses models as unique and consistent metric specifications, w.r.t a metric specification metamodel.

This declarative specification of metrics is then used to generate a fully fledged implementation. The benefit from applying the approach is evaluated by two applications. They indicate that this approach reduces the domain-specific measurement software development cost. View Show abstract Scheduling in Real-Time Systems Article Oct 2002 Francis Cottet Joelle Delacroix Claude Kaiser Zoubir Mammeri ISBN: 0-470-84766-2. HardcoverThis is particularly important for real-time systems and software architectures. Such a guaranty can be brought by the common use of the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) all along the tool-chain. This paper discusses modelling and analysis options of various real-time architectural patterns expressed in AADL though an experiment with Stood and Cheddar tools. The Cheddar framework is a set of Ada packages which aims at performing performance analysis of real time architectures. In this article, in order to illustrate the interoperability between Stood and Cheddar, we propose a set of AADL design patterns to model usual real time synchronization paradigms (12). This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we present performance analysis methods that are expected to be applied on AADL design patterns. These AADL design patterns are then described in section 3. Finally, we conclude and describe ongoing works in section 4. View Show abstract Rapid Prototyping of Distributed Real-Time Embedded Systems Using the AADL and Ocarina. Conference Paper Full-text available Jan 2007 Jerome Hugues Bechir Zalila Laurent Pautet F. Kordon Building Distributed Real-Time Embedded systems re- quires a stringent methodology, from early requirements capture to full implementation. However, there is a strong link between the requirements and the final implementa- tion (e.g. scheduling, resource dimensioning).

Therefore, a rapid prototyping process based on automation of te- dious and error-prone tasks (analysis, code generation) is required to speed up the development cycle. In this ar- ticle, we show how the AADL (Architecture, Analysis and Description Language), appeared late 2005, helps solving these issues thanks to a dedicated tool-suite. We then de- tail the prototyping process and its current implementation: Ocarina. View Show abstract Modern operating systems (3. ed.). Book Jan 2008 Andrew S. Tanenbaum View Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in Hard-Real-Time Environment Article Jan 1973 J ACM C.L. Liu James W. Layland The problem of multiprogram scheduling on a single processor is studied from the viewpoint of the characteristics peculiar to the program functions that need guaranteed service. It is shown that an optimum fixed priority scheduler possesses an upper bound to processor utilization which may be as low as 70 percent for large task sets. It is also shown that full processor utilization can be achieved by dynamically assigning priorities on the basis of their current deadlines. A combination of these two scheduling techniques is also discussed. View Show abstract Investigating the usability of real-time scheduling theory with the Cheddar project Article Full-text available Nov 2009 R Time Syst Frank Singhoff Alain Plantec Pierre Dissaux Jerome Legrand This article deals with real-time critical systems modelling and verification. Real-time scheduling theory provides algebraicThe Cheddar project investigates why real-time scheduling theory is not used and how its usability can be increased. The project wasThis article is an extended presentation of the Cheddar project, its contributions and also its ongoing works.