Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL
20
Web Science & Technologies University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL Gerd Gröner Steffen Staab
-
Upload
gerd-groener -
Category
Business
-
view
112 -
download
1
description
Paper presented at EKAW2010
Transcript of Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL
Web Science & Technologies
University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany
Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL
Gerd Gröner
Steffen Staab
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20102 of 20
WeST
Knowledge Base
represent the behavior of dynamic systems
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20103 of 20
WeST
Specialization Process of the Knowledge Base
Specialization by different
actors
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20105 of 20
WeST
Problem
valid?specific model has to conform to the behavior of the abstract model
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20106 of 20
WeST
What are Statecharts?
Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F)
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20107 of 20
WeST
What are Statecharts?
Finite automata M = (S, ∑, T, s, F)
Extended with substates
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 20108 of 20
WeST
Two Kinds of Specializations
Extensions
Add states and transitions
Refinements
Restrictions on state and transition definitions
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201011 of 20
WeST
Refinement
e.g., move transition from substate to superstate
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201012 of 20
WeST
Using OWL for Validation
Representation in OWL
Comparison in OWL
Reasoning for Validation
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201013 of 20
WeST
Representation in OWL
SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured
SA1
≡ Domestic
S
A1 ⊑ S
A
Gerd Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201014 of 20
WeST
Representation in OWL
SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ ∃ sourceOfTransition. T
a
Ta ≡ arrive ⊓ ∃ source.S
A
Gerd Grö[email protected]
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 Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201016 of 20
WeST
Comparison in OWL
SA' ≡ Ordered
⊓ Insured
SA1
' ≡ Domestic ⊓ Free
SA1
' ⊑ SA'
SA ≡ Ordered
Gerd Grö[email protected]
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 Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201018 of 20
WeST
Reduction
Validation of Extensions
Remove additional states Remove additional transitions Replace transitions by super-transitions
⇒ S'' and T''
Gerd Grö[email protected]
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 Grö[email protected]
EKAW 201020 of 20
WeST
Conclusion
Adopted extension and refinement rules
Validation:
Representation in OWL and reduction
use concept subsumption checking in OWL
