Post on 26-Jan-2015
description
Web Science & Technologies
University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany
Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL
Gerd Gröner
Steffen Staab
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20102 of 20
WeST
Knowledge Base
represent the behavior of dynamic systems
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20103 of 20
WeST
Specialization Process of the Knowledge Base
Specialization by different
actors
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20104 of 20
WeST
Specialization
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20105 of 20
WeST
Problem
valid?specific model has to conform to the behavior of the abstract model
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20106 of 20
WeST
What are Statecharts?
Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F)
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20107 of 20
WeST
What are Statecharts?
Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F)
Extended with substates
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20108 of 20
WeST
Two Kinds of Specializations
Extensions
Add states and transitions
Refinements
Restrictions on state and transition definitions
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 20109 of 20
WeST
Extension
e.g., replace transition
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201010 of 20
WeST
Refinement
e.g., move condition to superstate
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201011 of 20
WeST
Refinement
e.g., move transition from substate to superstate
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201012 of 20
WeST
Using OWL for Validation
Representation in OWL
Comparison in OWL
Reasoning for Validation
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201013 of 20
WeST
Representation in OWL
SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured
SA1
≡ Domestic
S
A1 ⊑ S
A
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201014 of 20
WeST
Representation in OWL
SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ ∃ sourceOfTransition. T
a
Ta ≡ arrive ⊓ ∃ source.S
A
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201015 of 20
WeST
Comparison in OWL
Compare two knowledge bases Joint reasoning process
Different State and Transition labels
SA ≡ Ordered
SA' ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201016 of 20
WeST
Comparison in OWL
SA' ≡ Ordered
⊓ Insured
SA1
' ≡ Domestic ⊓ Free
SA1
' ⊑ SA'
SA ≡ Ordered
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201017 of 20
WeST
Reasoning for Validation
Reduction of States and Transitions
on the reduced sets
S''S'' and T'' T''
Subsumption checking
compared to S S and T T
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201018 of 20
WeST
Reduction
Validation of Extensions
Remove additional states Remove additional transitions Replace transitions by super-transitions
⇒ S'' and T''
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201019 of 20
WeST
Subsumption Checking
Valid if
1. For each state S'' in S''S'' there is a state S in SS:
S'' ⊑ S
2. For each transition T'' in T''T'' there is a transition T in TT:
T'' ⊑ T
Gerd Grönergroener@uni-koblenz.de
EKAW 201020 of 20
WeST
Conclusion
Adopted extension and refinement rules
Validation:
Representation in OWL and reduction
use concept subsumption checking in OWL