Advertisement

Compositional Verification of Diagnostic Process Models

  • Frank Cornelissen
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Part of the Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems book series (HAND, volume 6)

Abstract

When designing complex knowledge-based systems, it is often hard to guarantee that the specification of a system that has been designed actually fulfills the needs, i.e., whether it satisfies the design requirements. Especially for critical applications, for example in aerospace domains, there is a need to prove that the designed system will have certain properties under certain conditions (assumptions). While developing a proof of such properties, the assumptions that define the bounds within which the system will function properly are generated.

Keywords

Abstraction Level Logical Relation Hypothesis Evaluation Lower Level Property Primitive Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [Abadi and Lamport, 1993]
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport. Composing Specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15 (1), 73–132, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Benjamins et al.1996]
    R. Benjamins, D. Fensel and R. Straatman. Assumptions of problem-solving methods and their role in knowledge engineering. In: W. Wahlster (ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’96,John Wiley and Sons, 408–412, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Brazier et al.,1999] F.M.T. Brazier, J. Treur, N.J.E. Wijngaards and M. Willems. Temporal Semantics of Compositional Task Models and Problem Solving Methods. Data and Knowledge Engineering,29, 17–42, 1999. Preliminary version in: B.R. Gaines and M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’96,Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 15/1–15/17, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [Fensel, 1995]
    D. Fensel. Assumptions and limitatons of a problem solving method: a case study. In: B.R. Gaines and M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’95, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [Fensel and Benjamins, 1996]
    D. Fensel and R. Benjamins. Assumptions in model-based diagnosis. In: B.R. Gaines and M.A. Musen (dds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’96, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 5/1–5/18, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Fensel et al.,1996] D. Fensel, A. Schonegge, R. Groenboom and B. Wielinga. Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems. In: B.R. Gaines and M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’96,Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 4/1–4/20, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [Harmelen and Teije, 1997]
    F. van Harmelen and A. ten Teije. Validation and verification of diagnostic systems based on their conceptual model. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on the Validation and Verification of Knowledge-based Systems, EUROVAV’97, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [Harmelen and Fensel, 1995]
    F. van Harmelen and D. Fensel. Formal Methods in Knowledge Engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10 (4), 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [Jonker and Treur, 1998]
    C.M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: a Formal Analysis of Pro-activeness and Reactiveness. In: W.P. De Roever, H. Langmaack and A.Pnueli (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Compositionality, COMPOS’97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, pp. 350–380, Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Leeman et al.,1993] P. Leemans, J. Treur and M. Willems. On the verification of knowledge-based reasoning modules. Report IR-346, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, Artifical Intelligence Group, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [Reif, 1995]
    W. Reif. The KIV Approach to Software Engineering. In: M. Broy and S. Jnichen (eds.), Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1009, Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [Treur, 1993]
    J. Treur. Heuristic reasoning and relative incompleteness. International Journal ofApproximate Reasoning. 8 ,51–87, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Treur and Willems, 1994]
    J. Treur and M. Willems. A logical foundation for verification. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence ECAI94 A.G. Cohn (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 745–749, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Cornelissen
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations