Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

A Representation Theorem for Change through Composition of Activities

Published: 26 July 2019 Publication History

Abstract

The expanding use of information systems in industrial and commercial settings has increased the need for interoperation between software systems. In particular, many social, industrial, and business information systems require a common basis for a seamless exchange of complex process information. This is, however, inhibited, because different systems may use distinct terminologies or assume different meanings for the same terms. A common solution to this problem is to develop logical theories that act as an intermediate language between different parties. In this article, we characterize a class of activities that can act as intermediate languages between different parties in those cases. We show that for each domain with finite number of elements there exists a class of activities, we called canonical activities, such that all possible changes within the domain can be represented as a sequence of occurrences of those activities. We use an algebraic structure for representing change and characterizing canonical activities, which enables us to abstract away domain-dependent properties of processes and activities, and demonstrate general properties of formalisms required for semantic integration of dynamic information systems.

References

[1]
B. Aameri. 2012. Using partial automorphisms to design process ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’12). IOS Press, 309--322.
[2]
B. Aameri. 2016. Reasoning about Change with Domain-specific Process Ontologies. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto.
[3]
B. Aameri and M. Gruninger. 2014. Reuse with domain and process ontologies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO at FOIS 2014) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Vol. 1248.
[4]
D. Allsopp, P. Beautement, J. Bradshaw, E. Durfee, M. Kirton, C. Knoblock, N. Suri, A. Tate, and C. Thompson. 2002. Coalition agents experiment: Multi-agent co-operation in an international coalition setting. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Systems for Coalition Operations (KSCO’02). IEEE Computer Society.
[5]
D. Ancona and V. Mascardi. 2004. Coo-BDI: Extending the BDI model with cooperativity. In Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies. Springer, 109--134.
[6]
L. Aroyo and C. Welty. 2012. Harnessing disagreement for event semantics. In Proceedings of the DeRiVE. 31--40.
[7]
T. Bittner and M. Donnelly. 2007. Logical properties of foundational relations in bio-ontologies.Artif. Intell. Med. 39, 3 (2007), 197--216.
[8]
E. Börger and R. Stärk. 2012. Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-level System Design and Analysis. Springer Science 8 Business Media.
[9]
D. A. Bredikhin. 1976. Inverse semigroups of local automorphisms of universal algebras. Siber. Math. J. 17, 3 (1976), 386--393.
[10]
B. Craggs, M. Kilgallon Scott, and J. Alexander. 2014. ThumbReels: Query sensitive web video previews based on temporal, crowdsourced, semantic tagging. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1217--1220.
[11]
H. D. Ebbinghau and J. Flum. 1999. Finite Model Theory (2nd ed.). Springer.
[12]
M. R. Frias, J. P. Galeotti, C. G. Pombo, and N. M. Aguirre. 2005. DynAlloy: Upgrading alloy with actions. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’05). IEEE, 442--450.
[13]
O. Ganyushkin and V. Mazorchuk. 2009. Classical Finite Transformation Semigroups: An Introduction. Springer, UK.
[14]
M. Gruninger. 2003. Ontology of the process specification language. In Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer-Verlag.
[15]
Y. Gurevich. 2000. Sequential abstract-state machines capture sequential algorithms. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 1, 1 (2000), 77--111.
[16]
J. Jiang and M. Worboys. 2009. Event-based topology for dynamic planar areal objects. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 23, 1 (2009), 33--60.
[17]
Kathleen Keogh, Liz Sonenberg, and Wally Smith. 2009. Coordination in adaptive organisations: Extending shared plans with knowledge cultivation. In Organized Adaption in Multi-agent Systems. Springer, 90--107.
[18]
R. Kowalski and M. Sergot. 1989. A logic-based calculus of events. In Foundations of Knowledge Base Management. Springer, 23--55.
[19]
M. V. Lawson. 1998. Inverse Semigroups: The Theory of Partial Symmetries. World Scientific, Singapore.
[20]
F. Lin and R. Reiter. 1994. State constraints revisited. J. Logic Comput. 4, 5 (1994), 655--677.
[21]
J. Pinto and R. Reiter. 1995. Reasoning about time in the situation calculus. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 14, 2--4 (1995), 251--268.
[22]
R. Reiter. 1991. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz (Ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 359--380.
[23]
R. Reiter. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[24]
G. Schellhorn. 1999. Verification of Abstract State Machines. Doktorarbeit, Universität Ulm, Fakultät für Informatik (1999).
[25]
Gerhard Schellhorn. 2001. Verification of ASM refinements using generalized forward simulation. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 7, 11 (2001), 952--979.
[26]
T. Steiner, R. Verborgh, R. Van de Walle, M. Hausenblas, and J.G. Vallés. 2011. Crowdsourcing event detection in YouTube video. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Detection, Representation, and Exploitation of Events in the Semantic Web. 58--67.
[27]
M. H. Stone. 1936. The theory of representation for Boolean algebras. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 40, 1 (1936), 37--111.
[28]
H. Whitney. 1936. Differentiable manifolds. Ann. Math. 37, 2 (1936), 645--680.
[29]
S. Zarecky, J. Grun, and J. Zilka. 2008. The newest trends in marshalling yards automation. Transport Probl. 3, 4 (2008), 87--95.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 20, Issue 4
October 2019
323 pages
ISSN:1529-3785
EISSN:1557-945X
DOI:10.1145/3347091
  • Editor:
  • Orna Kupferman
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 July 2019
Accepted: 01 April 2019
Revised: 01 March 2019
Received: 01 June 2017
Published in TOCL Volume 20, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Canonical activities
  2. algebraic representation of change
  3. first-order logic
  4. partial automorphisms
  5. reasoning about action

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 90
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media