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