Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL

1,051 views

Published on

Paper presented at EKAW2010

Published in: Business, Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×