Paper detail

Semantic based model of Conceptual Work Products for formal verification of complex interactive systems

Many clinical workflows depend on interactive computer systems for highly technical, conceptual work products, such as diagnoses, treatment plans, care coordination, and case management. We describe an automatic logic reasoner to verify objective specifications for these highly technical, but abstract, work products that are essential to care. The conceptual work products specifications serve as a fundamental output requirement, which must be clearly stated, correct and solvable. There is strategic importance for such specifications because, in turn, they enable system model checking to verify that machine functions taken with user procedures are actually able to achieve these abstract products. We chose case management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) outpatients as our use case for its challenging complexity. As a first step, we illustrate how graphical class and state diagrams from UML can be developed and critiqued with subject matter experts to serve as specifications of the conceptual work product of case management. A key feature is that the specification must be declarative and thus independent of any process or technology. Our Work Domain Ontology with tools from Semantic Web is needed to translate UML class and state diagrams for verification of solvability with automatic reasoning. The solvable model will then be ready for subsequent use with model checking on the system of human procedures and machine functions. We used the expressive rule language SPARQL Inferencing Notation (SPIN) to develop formal representations of the UML class diagram, the state machine, and their interactions. Using SPIN, we proved the consistency of the interactions of static and dynamic concepts. We discussed how the new SPIN rule engine could be incorporated in the Object Management Group (OMG) Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM)

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.