Comparative Representations of IMF Types — applied to IEC Common Data Dictionary

Topic Description 
This thesis investigates alternative representations of Information Model Framework (IMF) types across four semantic technology paradigms: RDF typical instances, SHACL shapes, OWL classes, and OTTR templates. Each paradigm serves different purposes—such as instance modelling, constraint validation, logical reasoning, and uniform instantiation—but their interplay raises challenges of consistency, redundancy, and interoperability. 

The study will systematically examine the pros and cons of each representation format, identifying their respective strengths, limitations, and overlapping capabilities. Special emphasis will be given to how these representations can be transformed into one another, how they complement one another in practical workflows, and whether certain combinations yield better results in engineering data integration and validation contexts. 

To ground the analysis, the thesis will implement and test the different representation paradigms by encoding selected types from the IEC Common Data Dictionary (IEC CDD). This will provide a practical benchmark for evaluating expressive adequacy, ease of authoring, validation robustness, reasoning capabilities, and transformation feasibility. 

Research Questions 

1. How can IMF types be consistently represented as RDF typical instances, SHACL shapes, OWL classes, and OTTR templates? 

2. What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each representation with respect to: 

1. Expressivity (ability to capture semantics faithfully) 

2. Validation support (SHACL vs. OWL consistency checking) 

3. Reasoning capabilities (classification, inference, hierarchy construction) 

4. Practical usability (ease of authoring, readability, tool support) 

5. Transformability (to and from other representations) 

3. How can the representations be interlinked to ensure semantic consistency and avoid duplication of modelling effort? 

4. To what extent can shortcut attribute types (e.g., property-based vs. nested structures) be consistently mapped across representations? 

5. What lessons can be learned from representing IEC CDD types that inform best practices for IMF type modelling? 

Methodology 

1. Literature & Tool Survey – Review related work on RDF/SHACL/OWL/OTTR interoperability, focusing on industrial ontologies and semantic standardization (including IEC CDD). 

2. Formalization – Define a methodology for systematically representing IMF types in the four paradigms. 

3. Implementation – Encode selected IEC CDD types in all four paradigms. 

4. Interplay Analysis – Develop transformation pipelines to move between representations. 

5. Evaluation – Assess expressivity, reasoning/validation outcomes, effort required, and consistency. Case studies will test shortcut attribute representations. 

Expected Contributions (suggestions) 

• A comparative evaluation of four key semantic technology paradigms for IMF type modelling. 

• A tested methodology for encoding IEC CDD types in RDF, SHACL, OWL, and OTTR. 

• Transformation patterns linking the different representations. 

• Recommendations and modelling guidelines for IMF practitioners seeking to balance validation, reasoning, and practical usability.