Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 209–231 | Cite as

PSL: A semantic domain for flow models

  • Conrad Bock
  • Michael Gruninger
Regular Paper

Abstract

Flow models underlie popular programming languages and many graphical behavior specification tools. However, their semantics is typically ambiguous, causing miscommunication between modelers and unexpected implementation results. This article introduces a way to disambiguate common flow modeling constructs, by expressing their semantics as constraints on runtime sequences of behavior execution. It also shows that reduced ambiguity enables more powerful modeling abstractions, such as partial behavior specifications. The runtime representation considered in this paper uses the Process Specification Language (PSL), which is defined in first-order logic, making it amenable to automated reasoning. The activity diagrams of the Unified Modeling Language are used for example flow models.

Keywords

Flow model Flow semantics PSL Process specification Control flow Data flow Concurrency UML Activity model Communicated by Steve Cook 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Action Semantics Submission Team (2000) Action Semantics for the UML. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2000-08-02Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bock C (2003) UML 2 Activity and Action Models. Journal of Object Technology 2:4, July–August. http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2003_07/column3Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciocoiu M, Gruninger M, Nau D (2001) Ontologies for Integrating Engineering Applications. Journal of Computing and Information Science and Engineering 1(1):12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comon Logic Working Group (2003) Common Logic Standard. http://cl.tamu.edu, http://cl.tamu.eduGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fox MS (1992) The TOVE Project: A Common-sense Model of the Enterprise, Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems. In: Belli F, Radermacher FJ (eds) Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence # 604, Springer-Verlag, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox MS, Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise Modelling. AI Magazine, AAAI Press, pp 109–121, FallGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Daniel W, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL: The Planning Domain Definition Language v.2. Technical Report CVC TR-98-003, Yale Center for Computational Vision and ControlGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genesereth MR, Fikes R (1992) Knowledge Interchange Format 3.0. Technical Report KSL-92-01, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruninger M (2003) Guide to the Ontology of the Process Specification Language. In: Staab S (ed) Handbook of Ontologies in Information Systems, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruninger M (2003) PSL 2.0 Ontology – Current Theories and Extensions. http://www.nist.gov/psl/psl-ontology/Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruninger M (2004) Model Theory of PSL-Core. To appear in Technical Report of the Institute for Systems Research at the University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruninger M, Menzel C (2003) Process Specification Language: Principles and Applications. AI Magazine 24(3):63–74Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes P, Menzel C (2001) A Semantics for the Knowledge Interchange Format. Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, IJCAI, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hendler J, McGuinness DL (2001) DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems. 15:72–73Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalman J (2001) Automated reasoning with Otter. Rinton Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karp R, Miller R (1966) Properties of a Model for Parallel Computations: Determinacy, Termination, Queueing. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 14(6):1390–1411, NovemberMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiczales G, des Rivieres J, Bobrow D (1991) The Art of the Metaobject Protocol. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson J (1981) Petri Net Theory and the Modelling of Systems. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levesque H, Reiter R, Lesperance Y, Lin F, Scherl R (1997) GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31:92–128MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marti-Oliet N, Meseguer J (1991) From Petri Nets to Linear Logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1(1):69–101MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCarthy J, Hayes P (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McIlraith S, Son TC, Zeng H (2001) Semantic Web Services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on the Semantic Web 16:46–53, March/AprilGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menzel C, Gruninger M (2001) A formal foundation for process modeling. In: Welty C, Smith B (eds) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nau D (2003) Mapping and merging ontologies. In: Staab S (ed) Handbook of Ontologies in Information Systems, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Object Management Group (2003) OCL 2.0 Specification. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/03-10-14, MarchGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Object Management Group (2003) OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, version 1.5, Part 6. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/03-03-01, MarchGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Object Management Group (2004) UML 2.0 Superstructure Specificatoin. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/03-08-02, MarchGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reiter R (2001) Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schlenoff C, Knutilla A, Ray S (1997) Requirements for Modeling Manufacturing Process: A New Perspective. In: Proceedings of Design Engineering Conferences, Sacremento, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Unambiguous UML Submission Team (2003) Unambiguous UML (2U) 3rd Revised Submission to UML 2 Infrastructure RFP. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2003-01-07Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Workflow Management Coalition (1999) Workflow Standard – Interoperability Abstract Specification. http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1012_Nov_99.pdf, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Workflow Management Coalition (1999) Interface 1: Process Definition Interchange Process Model. Technical Report WfMC-TC-1016-P. http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs.htmGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wyner GM, Lee J (2003) Defining Specialization for Process Models. In: Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (eds) Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, MIT Press, pp 131–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Systems ResearchUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations