Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Checking Consistency and Completeness of On-Line Product Manuals

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As products are growing more complex, so is their documentation. With an increasing number of product options, the diversity in service and maintenance procedures grows accordingly. This trend also holds for large-scale medical devices such as magnetic resonance (MR) tomographs. Siemens Medical Solutions has thus decided against one common on-line service handbook for all its MR tomographs. Instead, they fragment the on-line documentation into small packages, out of which a suitable subset is selected for each individual product instance. Selection of (so-called) help packages is controlled by XML terms encoding Boolean choice conditions. To assure that the set of available help packages is sufficient for all valid product instances, we developed a tool called HelpChecker that provides a transformation of XML terms to propositional logic formulas and then employs BDD-based methods to ascertain completeness of the on-line documentation and to support authors in locating any gaps. Experiments with SAT-Solvers were also made.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baader, F., McGuinness, D., Nardi, P., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barker, V.E., O’Connor, D.E.: Expert systems for configuration at Digital: XCON and beyond. Commun. ACM 32(3), 298–318 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35(8), 677–691 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bühler, D., Küchlin, W.: A flexible similarity assessment framework for XML documents based on XQL and Java Reflection. In: Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems (IEA/AIE 2001), LNAI 2070, Budapest, Hungary. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)

  5. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, S.M.: Future Perfect. Addison-Wesley, New York (1987)

  8. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Proc. 6th Intl. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2003), pp. 502–518. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)

  9. Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G.E., Jannach, D.: UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 10(4), 449–469 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1988)

  11. Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Description of the RACER system and its applications. In: Working Notes of the 2001 International Description Logics Workshop (DL-2001), Stanford, CA (2001)

  12. Horrocks, I.: FaCT. In: Proceedings of the 1998 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL’98), IRST, Povo-Trento, Italy (1998)

  13. Kaiser, A.: A SAT-based propositional prover for consistency checking of automotive product data. Technical report, WSI-2001-16, University of Tübingen (2001)

  14. Küchlin, W., Sinz, C.: Proving consistency assertions for automotive product data management. J. Autom. Reason. 24(1–2), 145–163 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee, D., Chu, W.W.: Comparative analysis of six XML schema languages. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data) 29(3), 76–87 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mailharro, D.: A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. (AI EDAM) 12(4), 383–397 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Conflict analysis in search algorithms for propositional satisfiability. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (1996)

  18. McDermott, J.: R1: A rule-based configurer of computer systems. Artif. Intell. 19(1), 39–88 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McGuiness, D.L., Wright, J.R.: Conceptual modelling for configuration: a description logic-based approach. AI EDAM 12(4), 333–344 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGuinness, D.L.: Configuration. In Baader et al. [1], pp. 397–414

  21. Mittal, S., Frayman, F.: Towards a generic model of configuration tasks. In: Proc. 11th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1395–1401, Detroit, MI (1989)

  22. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proc. 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC’01) (2001)

  23. Nentwich, C., Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: XLinkIt: A consistency checking and smart link generation service. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 2(2), 151–185 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sabin, D., Freuder, E.C.: Configuration as composite constraint satisfaction. In: Luger, G.F. (ed.) Proc. Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, pp. 153–161. AAAI, Albuquerque, NM (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sabin, D., Weigel, R.: Product configuration frameworks – a survey. IEEE Intell. Syst. 13(4), 42–49 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sinz, C.: Towards an optimal CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2005), pp. 827–831 (2005)

  27. Sinz, C., Blochinger, W., Küchlin, W.: PaSAT - parallel SAT-checking with lemma exchange: Implementation and applications. In: Kautz, H., Selman, B. (eds.) LICS’2001 Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’2001), vol. 9 of Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics. Elsevier Science, Boston, MA (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sinz, C., Kaiser, A., Küchlin, W.: Formal methods for the validation of automotive product configuration data. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 17(1), 75–97 (2003). Special issue on configuration

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sinz, C., Khosravizadeh, A., Küchlin, W., Mihajlovski, V.: Verifying CIM models of Apache web server configurations. In: Proc. 3rd International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2003), pp. 290–297. IEEE Computer Society, Dallas, TX (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Sinz, C., Küchlin, W.: Verifying the on-line help system of SIEMENS magnetic resonance tomographs. In: Proc. 6th Intl. Conf. on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM’2004), pp. 391–402. Springer, Seattle, WA (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sinz, C., Lumpp, T., Schneider, J., Küchlin, W.: Detection of dynamic execution errors in IBM System Automation’s rule-based expert system. Inf. Softw. Technol. 44(14), 857–873 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Smolka, G.: A feature logic with subsorts. LILOG Report 33, IWBS, IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart, Germany (1988)

  33. Soininen, T., Niemelä, I.: Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In: Proc. 1st Intl. Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL’99), pp. 305–319, San Antonio, TX (1999)

  34. Soininen, T., Tiihonen, J., Männistö, T., Sulonen, R.: Towards a general ontology of configuration. AI EDAM 12(4), 357–372 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Somenzi, F.: Cudd: Cu decision diagram package release (1998)

  36. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Slisenko, A.O. (ed) Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, pp. 115–125 (1970)

  37. XML Schema Parts 0–2: Primer, Structures, Datatypes. W3C Recommendation (2001)

  38. XML Path Language 2.0. W3C Working Draft, April 2002

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Carsten Sinz

  2. Steinbeis Technology Transfer Center OIT, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Sand 13, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Wolfgang Küchlin

  3. Siemens Medical Solutions, Hartmannstr. 16, 91052, Erlangen, Germany

    Dieter Feichtinger & Georg Görtler

Authors
  1. Carsten Sinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Küchlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dieter Feichtinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georg Görtler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carsten Sinz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sinz, C., Küchlin, W., Feichtinger, D. et al. Checking Consistency and Completeness of On-Line Product Manuals. J Autom Reasoning 37, 45–66 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9037-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9037-y

Key words

Search

Navigation