QuoteRef: donnMD_1987

topics > all references > ThesaHelp: references c-d

references c-d
asynchronous processing
communicating sequential processes
coordinated robot movement
hierarchical structures
production systems
parallel programming languages
interrupt handler
non-deterministic processing
concurrent while in parallel processing
defining a process
waitfor condition in parallel processing
sensory prediction in coordinated motion
robot sensors
plan-based task scheduling
action chunks
non-preemptive task scheduling
hard real time systems
real time systems
high priority processes
synchronous communication through a channel
parameter passing by value-result
managing shared memory
parameter passing by reference
sending an object across a network


Donner, M.D., Real-Time Control of Walking, Boston, Birkhauser, 1987. Google

1 ;;Quote: complex control tasks best programmed as asynchronous communicating subtasks
1 ;;Quote: control programs for a six legged walking machine
1 ;;Quote: walking by controlling each leg with a mostly autonomous process
2 ;;Quote: coordination of walking by pos/neg constraints between neighboring leg processes
2 ;;Quote: a machine can walk with just inhibition constraints between leg processes; different gaits
3 ;;Quote: inhibition and excitation used to decide transition between driving and unloading the leg
7 ;;Quote: animal walking control has hierarchical structure and locality of control
7+ ;;Quote: animal walking is the consequence of simple interactions of low-level behaviors
7+ ;;Quote: animal walking is extremely repetitive
55 ;;Quote: production systems provide too much concurrency; serial behavior is difficult to do
56 ;;Quote: production systems do not have procedure abstractions
58 ;;Quote: systems for concurrent programming fail to handle complex, concurrent subtasks in a nondeterministic world
58+ ;;Quote: with complex, concurrent subtasks, must search for appropriate reactions to unpredictable events
58+ ;;Quote: a robot's environment is unpredictable and nondeterministic
58 ;;Quote: a concurrent while is concurrent processes terminated by an event
59 ;;Quote: lexical scoping of process termination avoids problems of first class values for process names, e.g., concurrent while
60 ;;Quote: mechanisms for 'wait until condition': interrupts, prediction, priority, busy waiting
60 ;;Quote: if predict a future event, then can ignore intermediate events
61 ;;Quote: with restricted resources, need to schedule what processes complete before what events
61 ;;Quote: plan-based scheduling is seldom needed; usually any reasonable strategy will work or none will work
62 ;;Quote: Pluribus programs is a set of code strips with bounded execution duration; unit of scheduling; loop or fork by adding names to scheduling table
63 ;;Quote: in OWL a code strip is uninterruptible, non-looping, and non-blocking
64 ;;Quote: performance guarantees required for controlling physical systems
65 ;;Quote: an OWL process is a sequence of processes, a concurrence of processes, a primitive statement, or a named process
65 ;;Quote: a sequence of processes in OWL is an infinite loop terminated by 'done'
66 ;;Quote: an OWL concurrence terminates when all subprocesses terminate
66 ;;Quote: a named process in OWL is a sequence or concurrence with parameters and a name
66 ;;Quote: in OWL, only one process in a concurrence can survive an alert signal
66 ;;Quote: alert added to OWL is prevent dangerous behavior by the walking machine
67 ;;Quote: an OWL process is a strip of code along with parameters and value of alert attribute
70 ;;Quote: 'when' statement in OWL waits until condition comes true; periodic testing of condition
73 ;;Quote: a concurrent while is terminated by the alert mechanism
76 ;;Quote: a 'varstar' variable gets new values at start of each time slice and updates at end of time slice
76 ;;Quote: reference parameters across processors either require expensive messages or access delays
80 ;;Quote: alert in OWL could guarantee that all sibling processes have been terminated
102 ;;Quote: could build robots with same natural motions as the task; e.g., a revolute joint naturally rotates
104 ;;Quote: OWL needs a partial preemption that suspends concurrent siblings instead of terminating them
105 ;;Quote: with OWL, programmers don't name processes; this simplifies programming
105 ;;Quote: preemption with alert simplifies the programming of asynchronous concurrent systems

Related Topics up

ThesaHelp: references c-d (337 items)
Topic: asynchronous processing (30 items)
Topic: communicating sequential processes (33 items)
Topic: coordinated robot movement (10 items)
Topic: walking (20 items)
Topic: hierarchical structures (46 items)
Topic: concurrency (33 items)
Topic: production systems (10 items)
Topic: parallel programming languages (14 items)
Topic: interrupt handler (20 items)
Topic: non-deterministic processing (19 items)
Topic: concurrent while in parallel processing (5 items)
Topic: defining a process (23 items)
Topic: waitfor condition in parallel processing (20 items)
Topic: sensory prediction in coordinated motion (9 items)
Topic: robot sensors (13 items)
Topic: plan-based task scheduling (13 items)
Topic: action chunks (6 items)
Topic: non-preemptive task scheduling (16 items)
Topic: hard real time systems (64 items)
Topic: real time systems (14 items)
Topic: high priority processes (13 items)
Topic: interrupts (25 items)
Topic: synchronous communication through a channel (28 items)
Topic: parameter passing by value-result (10 items)
Topic: managing shared memory (74 items)
Topic: parameter passing by reference (11 items)
Topic: sending an object across a network (11 items)
Group: robots   (16 topics, 147 quotes)

Collected barberCB 12/87
Copyright © 2002-2008 by C. Bradford Barber. All rights reserved.
Thesa is a trademark of C. Bradford Barber.