On the role of assertions for conceptual modeling as enablers of composable simulation solutions

ON THE ROLE OF ASSERTIONS FOR CONCEPTUAL MODELING AS ENABLERS OF COMPOSABLE SIMULATION SOLUTIONS Robert Dennis King Old Dominion University, 2009 Director: Dr. Andreas Tolk This research provides a much needed systematic review of the roles that assertions play in model composability and simulation interoperability. In doing so, this research contributes a partial solution to one of the problems of model composability and simulation interoperability—namely, why do simulation systems fail to achieve the maximum level of interoperability possible? It demonstrates the importance of the assertions that are made during model development and simulation implementation, particularly as they reflect the unique viewpoint of each developer or user. It hypothesizes that it is possible to detect composability conflicts by means of a four-step process developed by the author for capturing and comparing assertions. It demonstrates the process using a well understood example problem—the Falling Body Problem— developing a formal model of assertion, a strategy for assertion comparison, an inventory of forces, and a catalog of significant assertions that might be made for each term in the solution to the problem. Finally, it develops a software application to implement the strategy for comparing sets of assertions. The software successfully, detects potential conflicts between ontologies that were otherwise determined to be ontologically consistent, thus proving the hypothesis.

[1]  Merlin Dorfman Requirements Engineering , 1990 .

[2]  Charles D. Turnitsa,et al.  The landscape of assumptions , 2008, SpringSim '08.

[3]  Margarita Kokla GUIDELINES ON GEOGRAPHIC ONTOLOGY INTEGRATION , 2006 .

[4]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[5]  M. R. Genesereth,et al.  Knowledge Interchange Format Version 3.0 Reference Manual , 1992, LICS 1992.

[6]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey of Existing Approaches , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[7]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  Igniting the OWL 1.1 Touch Paper: The OWL API , 2007, OWLED.

[8]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[9]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Turing’s Ideas and Models of Computation , 2004 .

[10]  Holger Wache Towards Rule-Based Context Transformation in Mediators , 1999, EFIS.

[11]  Mikel D. Petty,et al.  Computational complexity of selecting components for composition , 2003 .

[12]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  A Layered Approach to Composition and Interoperation in Complex Systems , 2009, Complex Systems in Knowledge-based Environments.

[13]  Umut Durak,et al.  An Ontology for Trajectory Simulation , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.

[14]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description , 2006, IJCAR.

[15]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  The evolution of CycL, the Cyc representation language , 1991, SGAR.

[16]  Paul Doran,et al.  Ontology reuse via ontology modularisation , 2006 .

[17]  Paul K. Davis,et al.  Improving the Composability of Department of Defense Models and Simulations , 2004 .

[18]  Michael Kifer,et al.  F-logic: a higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance, and scheme , 1989, SIGMOD '89.

[19]  Levent Yilmaz,et al.  Toward a Meta-Level Framework for Agent-Supported Interoperation of Defense Simulations , 2005 .

[20]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Modular Ontologies - A Formal Investigation of Semantics and Expressivity , 2006, ASWC.

[21]  Liu Yang,et al.  A Comprehensive Study of Inappropriate Hierarchy in WordNet , 2006, ASWC.

[22]  Stewart Robinson,et al.  Conceptual modelling for simulation Part II: a framework for conceptual modelling , 2008, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[23]  Paul F. Reynolds,et al.  A case study of model context for simulation composability and reusability , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[24]  Ernest H. Page,et al.  Toward a Family of Maturity Models for the Simulation Interconnection Problem , 2004 .

[25]  Stewart Robinson,et al.  Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: definition and requirements , 2008, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[26]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  On the Semantics of Linking and Importing in Modular Ontologies , 2006, SEMWEB.

[27]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model , 2003 .

[28]  Norman Y. Foo Why engineering models do not have a frame problem , 2001 .

[29]  Stewart Robinson,et al.  Conceptual Modeling for Simulation: Issues and Research Requirements , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.

[30]  Li Ding,et al.  Using Ontologies in the Semantic Web: A Survey , 2005, Ontologies.

[31]  David Garlan,et al.  Architectural Mismatch: Why Reuse Is So Hard , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[32]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies: Where is their meeting point? , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[33]  William M. Hix,et al.  Assumption-Based Planning: A Planning Tool for Very Uncertain Times , 1995 .

[34]  Murray Shanahan Solving the frame problem - a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia , 1997 .

[35]  Adam Pease,et al.  Towards a standard upper ontology , 2001, FOIS.

[36]  Cartik R. Kothari,et al.  Building a Sensor Ontology: A Practical Approach Leveraging ISO and OGC Models , 2005, IC-AI.

[37]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.

[38]  C. Chow An introduction to computational fluid mechanics , 1979 .

[39]  D. Hestenes,et al.  A mechanics baseline test , 1992 .

[40]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Ontology Driven Interoperability - M&S Applications , 2006 .

[41]  Yarden Katz,et al.  Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner , 2007, J. Web Semant..