1. SISN
  2. All Volumes and Issues
  3. Volume 872, 2017
  4. Formal model of knowledge processing in situational awareness systems

Formal model of knowledge processing in situational awareness systems

SISN.
2017;
Volume 872, Number 1
: pp. 25 - 34

Burov Ye. V. Formal model of knowledge processing in situational awareness systems / Ye. V. Burov, Kh. I. Mykich // Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu "Lvivska politekhnika". Serie: Informatsiini systemy ta merezhi. — Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky, 2017. — No 872. — P. 25–34.

Authors: 

Yevhen Burov, Khrystyna Mykich

Information Systems and Networks Department, Lviv Polytechnic National University, 12, S. Bandery Str., Lviv, 79013, Ukraine

  1. Yevhen.V.Burov@lpnu.ua,
  2. Khrystyna.I.Mykich@lpnu.ua

In the article are described models and methods of formalizing and modeling process of decision making in systems with situation awareness (SAW systems). The definitions of mathematical formalization of situation are discussed. Also, the unifying algebraic model, allowing the usage of different tools for situation awareness modeling, based of Algebra of Systems was proposed. We analyze the term of description logic and its advantages and disadvantages. The mappings between algebraic model, description logic and interpreted systems are proposed.

situation awareness
formal model
framework
Algebra of ystems
description logic
interpreted systems

1. Endsley M. Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review Process More Data ≠ More Information, M. Endsley, R. Mica, Edited by Array. Most, Vol. 301, 2000, P. 3–32.

2. BeAware!-Situation awareness, the ontology-driven way, N. Baumgartner [and other], Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 69, 2010, P. 1181–1193.

3. Jousselme A. Interpreted Systems for Situation Analysis, Jousselme Anne Laure, Patrick Maupin, 10th International Conference on Information Fusion, IEEE, 2007, P. 1–11.

4. Steinberg A. N. Revisions to the JDL Model, Steinber A. N., Bowman C. L., White F. E, Joint NATO/IRIS Conference Proceedings, Quebec, 1998 and in Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications, Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 3719, 1999, R. 430–441.

5. Codd E. Relational Completeness of Data Base Sublanguages, E. F. Codd, IBM corporation, Vol. 54, 1972, R. 65 – 98.

6. Koo B. Algebra of Systems: A metalanguage for Model Synthesis and Evaluation, B. Koo, W.L. Simmons, E.F. Crawley, IEEE Transactions On 39.3, Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A:Systems and Humans, 2009, R. 501–513.

7. Koo B. Meta-language for Systems Architecting, B. A. Koo, In Engineering Systems and Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005, P. 168.

8. Koo B. A valuation technology for product development option using an executable meta-modeling language in Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering, B. Koo, W. L. Simmons, E. F. Crawley, Collaboration, Technology Innovation and Sustainability. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2007, R. 107–115.

9. Burris S. A Course in Universal Algebra, S. Burris, H. P. Sankappanavar, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981, R. 129–154.

10. Barwise J. Situation Theory and Its Applications, Jon Barwise, Center for the Study of Language (CSLI), Vol. 26, 1991, P. 631.

11. Devlin K. Situation theory and situation semantics, K. Delvin, Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 7, 2006, R. 601–664.

12. White F. E. A Model for Data Fusion, F. E. White, Proc. 1st National Symposium on Sensor Fusion, 1988, R. 153–158.