Paper presented at EKAW2010

1. Web Science & Technologies
University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany
Specialization and Validation of
Statecharts in OWL
Gerd Gröner
Steffen Staab

2. Knowledge Base
represent the behavior of dynamic systems
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 2 of 20

3. Specialization Process of the Knowledge Base
Specialization
by different
actors
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 3 of 20

4. Specialization
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 4 of 20

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. What are Statecharts?
Finite automata
M = (S, ∑, T, s, F)
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 6 of 20

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. 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. Extension
e.g., replace transition
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 9 of 20

10. Refinement
e.g., move condition to superstate
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 10 of 20

11. Refinement
e.g., move transition from substate to superstate
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 11 of 20

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. Representation in OWL
SA ≡ Ordered ⊓ Insured
SA1 ≡ Domestic
SA1 ⊑ SA
WeST Gerd Gröner EKAW 2010
groener@uni-koblenz.de 13 of 20

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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