Clause from the form P3 (Table four), for the identical action, namely
Clause in the variety P3 (Table four), for the same action, namely suspendAccount.Table 9. SPARQL Query–ATM use case.Choose Where { r a sense:User . r sense:hasRole x . x a sense:Maintainer. x sense:isRelatedToPermission Permission. NOT EXISTS pr a sense:suspendAccount. pr sense: isRelatedToPermission Permission. .Table 10 presents a query fairly comparable towards the Shopy use case, related to a customer role. A lot more particularly, it checks irrespective of whether the user is really a client and, because of this, if he/she is allowed to select a product. The query checks if you can find needs connected to Buyer that should really enable such an action (Nitrocefin supplier refers to principal clause on the M7 type (Table 3): entity shall [not] permit entity to action, which means that the technique should really enable the customer to act (choose item). Hence, there really should exist a prefix clause with the type P3 (Table four) for precisely the same action, namely selectProduct.Table 10. SPARQL Query–Shopy use case.Select Exactly where { r a sense:User . r sense:hasRole x . x a sense:Customer. x sense:isAllowedToAction Ziritaxestat Autophagy AlAction. NOT EXISTS pr a sense: selectProduct. pr sense: isAllowedToAction AlAction. .Moreover, we define for each query a number of SPIN (SPARQL Inferencing Notation), a de-facto industry standard, and 19 constraints, which are SPARQL queries that are placed at appropriate classes of the ontology and, if evaluated positively, indicate a constraint violation from instances of the class. The aforementioned (ATM) query (Table 8) is transformed to the following SPIN Constraint (Table 11) while the subsequent query (Table 9) is transformed to the SPIN Constraint presented in Table 12.Table 11. SPIN Constraint–ATM use case.ASK WHERE this sense:isRelatedToPermission Permission. NOT EXISTS pr a sense: suspendAccount. pr sense: isRelatedToPermission Permission . .Table 12. SPIN Constraint–Shopy use case.ASK WHERE this sense: isAllowedToAction AlAction. NOT EXISTS pr a sense: selectProduct. pr sense: isAllowedToAction AlAction. .Thus, finally with the use of SPIN, the rules can draw tacit relationships, fill in gaps, and fix the ontology and requirements by categorizing its instances while checking for all possible restrictions on instances of specific classes/types. SPIN allows SENSE to carry out ontology validation checks in three categories [22,23]: 1. 2. Check incompleteness requirements. Check for inconsistency requirements.Algorithms 2021, 14,13 of3.Check the system model for deficiencies based on the requirements.In order to contribute to the quality of the requirement specifications the framework covers the following sub-cases:Non-initialization of abstract requirements: This validation check discovers abstract requirements that are not initialized for each instance of its main entity. Non-specification of abstract claims: This check detects abstract requirements that are not specified, in other words that there are no instances of the abstract entity. This validation check is, in essence, an indication of an incomplete requirement. Entities that are not related to demands: This check will return all entities that do not have a requirement. Thus, it can be used as a deficit check, identifying entities that are not yet associated with a requirement or entities that have ceased to be used as not required by a requirement, possibly due to new requirements or revisions. Conflicting requirements: This check will return pairs of requirements that may conflict with each other. Non-coverage of states of the sy.