Commit 0dcaac6c authored by Benjamin Engel's avatar Benjamin Engel

Merge branch 'kraines_updates_ontologyWP' into 'master'

Kraines updates ontology wp

See merge request !27
parents d5376106 9dbf85a3
Pipeline #1394 passed with stage
in 15 seconds
......@@ -22,20 +22,20 @@ The Concept document is using M-SDL language to demonstrate all the concept. It
=== Domain Model
The OpenSCENARIO standards target the domain of closed-loop system testing for automotive functions. A Domain Model provides the semantics for the terms that are used in the Language component of OSC 2.0. In particular, an explicit specification of the Domain Model, e.g. in the form of a DL ontology, enables the preservation of semantics when scenario definitions are exchanged between different tools.
The OpenSCENARIO standards target the domain of closed-loop system testing for automotive functions. A domain model provides the semantics for the terms that are used in the Language component of OSC 2.0. Currently, the domain model for the OpenSCENARIO standards does not have an explicit representation. An explicit specification of the domain model, e.g. in the form of a DL ontology, enables the preservation of semantics when scenario definitions are exchanged between different tools. Furthermore, if the specification has a logical foundation, software tools can be developed that use logical inference to provide reasoning capabilities
The <<Entity Definition>> work package provides the foundation of the Domain Model. This definition should cover all of the entities that are necessary to create scenarios according to the requirements identified in the concept document. The definitions must be unambiguous and include the characteristic properties and possible actions of each entity. The development of the entity definition will follow two tracks. First, the existing entity definitions of OSC 1.0 will be analyzed for migration to OSC 2.0 to ensure compatibility between the two versions of the standard. Second, the already identified gaps in OSC 1.0 will be closed by extending the Domain Model with additional entity definitions.
The <<Entity Definition>> work package provides the foundation of the domain model. This definition should cover all of the entities that are necessary to create scenarios according to the requirements identified in the concept document. The definitions must be unambiguous and include the characteristic properties and possible actions of each entity. The development of the entity definition will follow two tracks. First, the existing entity definitions of OSC 1.0 will be analyzed for migration to OSC 2.0 to ensure compatibility between the two versions of the standard. Second, the already identified gaps in OSC 1.0 will be closed by extending the Domain Model with additional entity definitions.
It will neither be possible nor meaningful to try to attempt to cover all possible scenarios and simulators with the entity definition of OSC 2.0. Therefore, a technical concept on a standard-conform <<Extensibility>> of the Domain Model needs to be developed.
It will neither be possible nor meaningful to try to attempt to cover all possible scenarios and simulators with the entity definition of OSC 2.0. Therefore, a technical concept on a standard-conform <<Extensibility>> of the domain model needs to be developed.
As identified in the concept document, the Domain Model for OpenSCENARIO 2.0 should be specified using some form of predicate logic in order to achieve maximum clarity and portability. This is particularly important for defining the types of relationships that can hold between entities. The <<Ontology>> work package provides this formal specification of the Domain Model in the form of an ontology, possibly using one of the description logics supported by the W3C OWL standard. Having the Domain Model expressed as a formal ontology enables the use of reasoning software for classifying and matching scenario descriptions as well as providing a basis for computer inference that can assist human authors in creating scenario descriptions in natural language that are logically coherent and semantically valid.
As identified in the concept document, the domain model for OpenSCENARIO 2.0 should be specified using some form of predicate logic in order to achieve maximum clarity and portability. This is particularly important for defining the types of relationships that can hold between entities. The <<Ontology>> work package provides this formal specification of the domain model in the form of an ontology, possibly using one of the description logics supported by the W3C OWL standard. Having the domain model expressed as a formal ontology enables the use of reasoning software for classifying and matching scenario descriptions as well as providing a basis for computer inference that can assist human authors in creating scenario descriptions in natural language that are logically coherent and semantically valid.
==== Entity Definition
[NOTE]
Persons responsible for filling this sub-chapter: M. Kluge, S.Kraines
Clear and unambiguous definitions of all of the key entities in the Domain Model are essential for providing the semantics for the vocabulary of the new domain specific language. One major requirement for OpenSCENARIO 2.0 given in the concept document is full support of the https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario/#[OpenSCENARIO 1.0 standard], which has already been released by ASAM. This includes a full migration path from the 1.x versions to the domain specific language to be developed in OpenSCENARIO 2.0, to be delivered by WP_DM1_Transfer1x.
Entities are actual things in a domain. These can be activities, events, conditions and information, as well as physical objects. Clear and unambiguous definitions of all of the key entities in the domain model are essential for providing the semantics for the vocabulary of the OSC2.0 domain specific language. One major requirement for OpenSCENARIO 2.0 given in the concept document is full support of the https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario/#[OpenSCENARIO 1.0 standard], which has already been released by ASAM. This includes a full migration path from the 1.x versions to the domain specific language to be developed in OpenSCENARIO 2.0, to be delivered by WP_DM1_Transfer1x.
*WP_DM1_Transfer1x*
The entity definitions given for the Domain Model in the concept document (https://www.asam.net/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=3460&token=14e7c7fab9c9b75118bb4939c725738fa0521fe9[OpenSCENARIO 2.0 Concept Project]) did not address support for OpenSCENARIO 1.0. OpenSCENARIO 1.0 already contains multiple definitions for entities, which may not be compatible with the entity definitions given in the OpenSCENARIO 2.0 concept document. All entities in the 1.0 model must have a counterpart in 2.0. Inconsistencies in naming and scope must be resolved or, if this is not feasible, a mapping between entities in both models has to be defined.
......@@ -70,14 +70,16 @@ Later, these new extensions be efficiently leveraged for automated user-defined
[NOTE]
Persons responsible for filling this sub-chapter: S. Kraines, I. Whiteside
This work package will to leverage the outcomes of the OpenX Ontology project in order to provide a clear and unambiguous conceptual foundation for the OSC2.0 Domain Model. It is envisaged that some form of description logic will be applied and that lessons will be drawn from existing applications of ontologies in industry. Technologies to be evaluated in the work package include upper level ontologies, W3C standards, reasoning engines, and authoring tools.
In coordination with the <<Entity Definition>> work package and the <<OpenX Ontology>> project, the <<Ontology>> work package will augment the definitions of key entities and other concepts for the OSC2.0 DSL. An ontology-engineering approach based on some form of predicate logic (probably a description logic) will be applied to develop the definitions using core concepts and relationships, particularly spatial and temporal relationships between both dynamic and static traffic agents, provided by the OpenX Ontology project. These definitions will take the form of semantic triples (subject entity - relationship type - object entity triples), so they can be expressed and manipulated as labeled graphs.
Deliverables:
- definitions of main OSC2.0 terms using concepts and relationships from the OpenX Ontology
- guidelines for how to use semantic inference to classify and match scenario descriptions based on their meaning
- guidelines for how to implement computer reasoning to identify semantic errors in scenario definitions
- guidelines for how to use computer reasoning to assist people in creating abstract-level scenarios that are complete and logically coherent
The main deliverable of the ontology workpackage is envisaged to be a formal specification of the domain model for the OSC2.0 DSL.
This specification will contain clear and unambiguous definitions of the following concepts:
* Road infrastructure, meaning roads, lanes, etc.
* Traffic infrastructure, meaning traffic signs, signals, etc.
* Temporal changes in the road and traffic infrastructures, meaning road constructions, diversions, etc.
* Dynamic traffic agents, such as cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.
* Environment, meaning weather, time of day, etc.
* V2X communication objects
=== Language Concepts
......
......@@ -110,10 +110,19 @@ This WP will address the necessary ways of packaging functionality into librarie
.DM-Ontology
[cols="1,5",caption='WP {counter:wp1}: ']
|===
|*Description* | Develop ontology to establish relations between entities
|*Description* | Use ontology-engineering techniques to create a logic-based specification of the OSC2.0 Domain Model
| *Responsibles* | S. Kraines, F. Sanchez, I. Whiteside, P. Parekh
|*Deliverable* | Extension of the entity definition delivered by WP DM-Extend2x with an ontology that describes relations between the entities to enable inferrment.
| *Effort* | 60
|*Deliverable* |
- extensions of entity definitions developed under WP DM-Extend2x using concepts and relationships from the OpenX Ontology
- guidelines for how to use semantic inference to classify and match scenario descriptions based on their meaning
- guidelines for how to implement computer reasoning to identify semantic errors in scenario definitions
- guidelines for how to use computer reasoning to assist people in creating abstract-level scenarios that are complete and logically coherent
| *Effort* | 100
| *Service Provider* | Tasks to be performed by a service provider. Also estimate the % of total effort for this WP.
|===
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment