Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL

0 views
826 views

Published on

Paper presented at EKAW2010

Published in: Business, Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
0
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL

  1. 1. Web Science & Technologies University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL Gerd Gröner Steffen Staab
  2. 2. Knowledge Base represent the behavior of dynamic systems WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 2 of 20
  3. 3. Specialization Process of the Knowledge Base Specialization by different actors WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 3 of 20
  4. 4. Specialization WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 4 of 20
  5. 5. Problem specific model has valid? to conform to the behavior of the abstract model WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 5 of 20
  6. 6. What are Statecharts? Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F) WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 6 of 20
  7. 7. What are Statecharts? Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F) Extended with substates WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 7 of 20
  8. 8. Two Kinds of Specializations Extensions Refinements Add states and transitions Restrictions on state and transition definitions WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 8 of 20
  9. 9. Extension e.g., replace transition WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 9 of 20
  10. 10. Refinement e.g., move condition to superstate WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 10 of 20
  11. 11. Refinement e.g., move transition from substate to superstate WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 11 of 20
  12. 12. Using OWL for Validation Reasoning for Validation Representation in OWL Comparison in OWL WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 12 of 20
  13. 13. Representation in OWL SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured SA1 ≡ Domestic SA1 ⊑ SA WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 13 of 20
  14. 14. Representation in OWL SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ ∃ sourceOfTransition. Ta Ta ≡ arrive ⊓ ∃ source.SA WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 14 of 20
  15. 15. Comparison in OWL Compare two knowledge bases  Joint reasoning process  Different State and Transition labels SA ≡ Ordered SA' ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 15 of 20
  16. 16. Comparison in OWL SA ≡ Ordered SA' ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured SA1' ≡ Domestic ⊓ Free SA1' ⊑ SA' WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 16 of 20
  17. 17. Reasoning for Validation Subsumption Reduction of checking on the States and reduced sets Transitions S'' and T'' compared to S and T WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 17 of 20
  18. 18. Reduction Validation of Extensions  Remove additional states  Remove additional transitions  Replace transitions by super-transitions ⇒ S'' and T'' WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 18 of 20
  19. 19. Subsumption Checking Valid if 1. For each state S'' in S'' there is a state S in S: S'' ⊑ S 2. For each transition T'' in T'' there is a transition T in T: T'' ⊑ T WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 19 of 20
  20. 20. Conclusion Adopted extension and refinement rules Validation: Representation in OWL and reduction  use concept subsumption checking in OWL WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010 groener@uni-koblenz.de 20 of 20

×