Verification analysis method for standardized interface information of electrical cabinet based on specification compliance

Abstract

The application provides a standardized interface information verification analysis method for electrical cabinet based on specification compliance, and belongs to the technical field of electrical cabinet design verification. The method comprises the following steps: obtaining multi-source heterogeneous design data of an electrical cabinet, generating a structured interface information instance set based on a pre-defined model; extracting requirements from standard specification texts and constructing conditional-conclusion rule nodes, establishing an association relationship through semantic alignment to form a specification knowledge graph; inputting the interface information instance set and the specification knowledge graph into a hybrid reasoning engine, performing multi-mechanism joint reasoning of rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning and graph model topology constraint solving, and generating a structured verification report; and performing visual compliance display and generating tamper-proof storage evidence. The application realizes multi-level automatic compliance analysis of electrical cabinet interfaces from single interface attribute verification to whole cabinet topology verification, and significantly improves the comprehensiveness and accuracy of verification.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of electrical cabinet design verification technology, and more specifically, it relates to a method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on compliance with specifications. Background Technology

[0002] As the core device of power distribution and automation control systems, electrical cabinets must strictly comply with relevant industry standards and internal company specifications in terms of their external interfaces, including type, specifications, electrical parameters, communication protocols, and installation layout. Currently, some computer-aided verification methods exist, such as geometric dimension comparison based on parametric models or single-dimensional rule verification. However, these methods are mostly limited to checking the physical dimensions of the interface or a certain type of electrical parameter. They lack the ability to uniformly model and semantically integrate heterogeneous design data (such as 3D models, electrical schematics, and wiring tables), making it difficult to cover the multiple technical characteristics involved in the electrical cabinet interface, including physical, electrical, protocol, and safety dimensions. This prevents cross-dimensional correlation verification, leading to potential problems such as interface mismatch or communication protocol conflicts during field integration.

[0003] On the other hand, the design and manufacture of electrical cabinets often need to meet the requirements of multiple sets of standards and specifications simultaneously. These standard documents contain numerous mandatory and recommended requirements for interfaces, but the clauses are scattered and expressed in different ways. Existing verification methods typically involve technicians manually reviewing each clause of the standard text and comparing it with the design data, making it difficult to achieve semantic correlation and automatic alignment between clauses from multiple standards. When the same interface needs to meet multiple sets of standards and specifications simultaneously, different standards may give different or even contradictory limit requirements for the same interface attribute. Existing technologies lack the ability to automatically identify equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships, leading to omissions or misjudgments in multi-standard compliance verification.

[0004] Furthermore, existing technologies for verifying electrical cabinet interfaces primarily focus on checking the attributes of individual interfaces, lacking systematic topological constraint analysis from the perspective of the entire cabinet layout. In engineering practice, high-voltage and low-voltage interfaces need to maintain safe isolation distances, and redundant interface groups need to maintain structural symmetry in terms of type, attributes, and connection relationships. These topological constraints cannot be discovered and determined by checking the parameters of isolated interfaces. Existing verification methods lack the technical capability to abstract all cabinet interfaces into a graph model and perform subgraph isomorphic matching and distance constraint solving. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the above issues, the present invention aims to provide a method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on compliance with specifications. This method utilizes multi-feature ontology modeling and heterogeneous data semantic mapping, and leverages a multi-mechanism joint reasoning mechanism—namely, rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model topology solving—driven by a specification knowledge graph with multi-standard semantic alignment. This enables multi-level automated compliance analysis from single-interface attribute verification to whole-cabinet topology verification.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention employs the following technical solution: In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, comprising the following steps: S1: Obtain multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them and map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model to generate a structured set of interface information instances; S2: Extract the requirements for the interface from multiple standard and specification texts related to the electrical cabinet interface and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the set of interface information instances as a reference, semantically align the requirements for the same interface in different standard specifications and establish association relationships to form a specification knowledge graph. S3: Input the set of interface information instances and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model to generate a structured verification report; S4: Based on the structured verification report, generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-compliance items, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the full-process verification data.

[0007] In an optional implementation, step S1 includes: The three-dimensional model, electrical schematic diagram and wiring table of the electrical cabinet are obtained as multi-source heterogeneous design data. Semantic annotation tools are used to perform entity recognition on the interface information in the multi-source heterogeneous design data, and interface type labels and attribute key-value pairs are extracted. The extraction results are mapped to the multi-dimensional interface information model, which is an ontology model containing physical features, electrical features, protocol features, and security features. The physical features include interface type, panel opening size, installation location coordinates, and protection level. The electrical features include rated voltage and rated current. The protocol features include communication protocol type and baud rate. The security features include grounding requirements and isolation voltage. Generate a structured record for each interface instance, represented as follows:

[0008] in, For the first One interface instance, This is a unique identifier for this interface instance. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the electrical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the protocol features. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the security feature. These are the coordinates of the interface's installation location in the three-dimensional space of the electrical cabinet; An interface information instance set is constructed based on all interface instances. ,in This represents the total number of interface instances.

[0009] In an optional implementation, step S2 includes: Natural language processing is performed on various standard specification texts related to electrical cabinet interfaces, including IEC 61439 series standards, GB / T 7251 series standards, IEC 61918 standards, IEC 61784 series standards, and internal enterprise interface specification texts. Mandatory and recommended requirements for interfaces are extracted from the multiple standard specification texts using named entity recognition and dependency parsing. Each requirement is structured into a condition-conclusion rule node, represented as follows:

[0010] in, For the first Rule nodes, For interface instances Conditional predicates are used to limit the range of values, type constraints, and dependencies of interface properties. This is the conclusion of the rule. This is the identifier for the standard clause corresponding to this rule; Using the extracted interface type tags and attribute key-value pairs as semantic anchors, semantic similarity is calculated for requirements involving the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specification texts. Based on the calculation results, at least one of the following relationships is established: equivalence, substitution, and conflict. Using the condition-conclusion rule nodes as nodes and the established equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships as edges, a canonical knowledge graph is formed. .

[0011] In an optional implementation, step S3 includes: The set of interface information instances With the aforementioned standard knowledge graph Input the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning, including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model-based topology constraint solving; The rule-based reasoning process includes: Traversal Each rule node For each interface instance Perform conditional predicate For truth value determination, when the same interface instance needs to meet multiple sets of standard specifications at the same time, the judgment benchmark is selected according to the strictest value principle, and a rule-level judgment result is generated. The ontology verification reasoning process includes: Based on the description logic, each interface instance Automatically classify compliant subclasses and detect semantic contradictions between protocol feature attributes and interface physical types when an interface instance... vector Values ​​and vectors of the communication protocol types contained therein If the set of protocol compatibility defined by the values ​​of the interface types contained in the code does not match, a semantic contradiction is determined to exist. The process of solving the topological constraints based on the graph model includes: The set of interface information instances All interface instances are abstracted into a graph model ; The node set is ; The edge set is ; From the aforementioned normative knowledge graph The topological constraints are extracted, and the graph model is subjected to spacing calculation, subgraph isomorphic matching, and constraint solving to determine the compliance of the overall cabinet interface layout. The topological constraints include high and low voltage interface isolation spacing constraints, redundant interface symmetry constraints, and strong and weak current separation constraints. When any of the mechanisms in rule-based reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model topology constraint solving generates a non-compliance judgment for a certain interface instance, the interface instance is marked as a non-compliance, and each interface instance is recorded. The conformity assessment results are used to generate a structured verification report. .

[0012] In an optional implementation, step S4 includes: According to the structured verification report Extract the set of interface instances marked as non-conformities, and then calculate the installation position coordinates of each non-conformity interface instance on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet. Highlighting and marking these areas creates a compliance heatmap; For each non-conforming interface instance, from the structured validation report Extract the rule node references that lead to non-compliance judgments, and display the full text of the non-compliant standard clauses, modification suggestions generated based on the rule type, and recommended alternative parts information retrieved from the component library on the display interface; Based on the interface information instance set Standardized knowledge graphs Intermediate decision results and structured verification reports from the hybrid inference engine Generate full-process verification data, perform hash operations on the full-process verification data, and generate blockchain evidence.

[0013] In an optional implementation, subgraph isomorphic matching of the graph model includes: According to the graphical model A vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics of each interface instance. Interface instances with the same interface type and whose installation locations satisfy a preset symmetry relationship are grouped into the same redundant interface group to determine the graph model. A subset of interface nodes belonging to the same redundant interface group ; A vector formed by the values ​​of various attributes in the physical characteristics of the first interface instance in the redundant interface group. and installation location coordinates Based on this, construct a pattern subgraph; Using the subgraph isomorphism algorithm, in the graph model The remaining interface nodes in the redundant interface group are matched one by one with subgraphs to verify the structural consistency of each redundant interface with the pattern subgraph in terms of interface type, attribute value and connection relationship. When any redundant interface does not match the pattern subgraph, it is determined that the symmetry constraint of the redundant interface is violated.

[0014] In an optional implementation, the step of calculating semantic similarity for requirements involving the same interface type and the same attributes in different standard specification texts, and establishing equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships based on the calculation results, includes: The text of requirements for the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specifications is encoded into semantic vectors through a pre-trained language model, and the cosine similarity between semantic vectors is calculated. A first similarity threshold and a second similarity threshold are set, wherein the first similarity threshold is higher than the second similarity threshold; When the cosine similarity is greater than or equal to the first similarity threshold, an equivalent relationship is established; When the cosine similarity is less than the first similarity threshold and greater than or equal to the second similarity threshold, a substitution relationship is established; A conflict relationship is established when the cosine similarity is less than the second similarity threshold and the two conditional predicates that require the same interface attribute are mutually exclusive and have opposite judgment conclusions.

[0015] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a system for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, including: The interface information standardization modeling module is used to acquire multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them and map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model to generate a structured set of interface information instances. The specification knowledge graph construction module is used to extract interface requirements from multiple standard specification texts related to electrical cabinet interfaces and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the interface information instance set as a reference, it performs semantic alignment and establishes association relationships for the requirements of the same interface in different standard specifications to form a specification knowledge graph. The joint reasoning verification module is used to input the interface information instance set and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model, to generate a structured verification report. The verification result visualization module is used to generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet based on the structured verification report, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-conformities, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the data of the entire verification process.

[0016] Thirdly, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the program, it implements the steps of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance as described in any of the above.

[0017] Fourthly, embodiments of this application also provide a storage medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance as described in any of the above embodiments.

[0018] As can be seen from the above technical solutions, the present invention has the following advantages: The electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method provided in this application constructs a four-feature ontology model containing physical, electrical, protocol, and security features to achieve unified semantic mapping and structured expression of multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets. Based on this, a specification knowledge graph is constructed to structure the interface requirements of multiple standard specifications in the form of condition-conclusion rule nodes. The method automatically establishes cross-standard equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships through semantic similarity calculation. Then, a hybrid reasoning engine is used to perform rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph models. This achieves multi-level, multi-mechanism joint compliance analysis from single interface attribute verification to whole cabinet layout topology verification, significantly improving the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and automation of electrical cabinet interface verification, and effectively reducing on-site rework costs and equipment safety hazards caused by interface mismatch.

[0019] This application employs an ontology model encompassing physical, electrical, protocol, and security features. Semantic annotation tools are used to automatically map heterogeneous source data, such as the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, electrical schematics, and wiring diagrams, onto this model, generating a machine-readable set of structured interface information instances. This method overcomes the limitations of existing technologies that can only perform isolated checks on single-dimensional attributes. It achieves a unified representation of multi-dimensional attributes such as interface type, electrical parameters, communication protocols, and security requirements within the same data structure, enabling cross-dimensional correlation verification. For example, it automatically detects semantic contradictions between communication protocol types and interface physical types, effectively avoiding communication failures caused by protocol-hardware incompatibility during field interfacing.

[0020] This application uses natural language processing to extract mandatory and recommended requirements from multiple standard specifications related to electrical cabinet interfaces, structuring them into condition-conclusion rule nodes. Through semantic similarity calculation, it automatically establishes equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships between different standards for the same interface requirements, forming a specification knowledge graph with rule nodes as nodes and semantic relationships as edges. This method changes the traditional work mode of relying on manual comparison of standard texts, achieving automatic semantic alignment of multiple standard clauses. When the same interface needs to meet multiple standards simultaneously, it can automatically identify conflicting requirements between standards and select the most stringent value as the judgment benchmark, effectively avoiding omissions and misjudgments in multi-standard compliance verification, and significantly improving the efficiency of electrical cabinet product certification.

[0021] This application abstracts all interface information instances of an electrical cabinet into a graph model with interfaces as nodes and signal connection relationships as edges. It extracts topological constraints such as high- and low-voltage interface isolation spacing constraints, redundant interface symmetry constraints, and strong / weak current separation constraints from a standard knowledge graph. The graph model is then solved using a subgraph isomorphism algorithm and a distance constraint solver to determine the compliance of the entire cabinet's interface layout. This method overcomes the limitation of existing technologies that can only perform isolated attribute checks on individual interfaces. For the first time, it achieves automatic analysis of the spatial positional relationships and functional associations between interfaces from the perspective of the entire cabinet layout. It can detect systemic layout defects such as insufficient spacing between high- and low-voltage interfaces and asymmetrical structures in redundant interface groups, filling a technological gap in the field of electrical cabinet interface topology verification.

[0022] This application uses structured verification reports as input data to generate highlighted marks and a compliance heatmap at the installation location of each non-conforming interface on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet. It also displays the full text of the non-conforming standard clauses, modification suggestions generated based on rule types, and recommended alternative parts retrieved from the component library. This method changes the traditional binary judgment's single feedback mode, enabling designers to intuitively locate the precise position of non-conformities in 3D space and obtain targeted rectification guidance, significantly shortening the design modification and rework cycle.

[0023] This application performs hash operations on the entire verification process data, from the generation of the interface information instance set to the output of the structured verification report, to generate blockchain evidence, establishing an immutable and trustworthy chain of evidence for each verification operation. This method ensures full traceability of the verification process, providing reliable data support for compliance audits, quality liability determination, and certification reviews of electrical cabinet products. Attached Figure Description

[0024] To more clearly illustrate the technical solution of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the accompanying drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0025] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating the method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on compliance with specifications provided in this application.

[0026] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the structure of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis system based on specification compliance provided in this application.

[0027] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device provided in this application. Detailed Implementation

[0028] The various embodiments of this disclosure will be described more fully in the following detailed description of the specific steps of the method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance. This disclosure may have various embodiments, and adjustments and changes may be made therein. However, it should be understood that there is no intention to limit the various embodiments of this disclosure to the specific embodiments disclosed herein, but rather this disclosure should be understood to cover all adjustments, equivalents, and / or alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the various embodiments of this disclosure.

[0029] In the following, the terms “comprising” or “may include”, which may be used in various embodiments of this disclosure, indicate the presence of the disclosed functions, operations, or elements, and do not limit the addition of one or more functions, operations, or elements. Furthermore, as used in various embodiments of this disclosure, the terms “comprising,” “having,” and their cognates are intended only to indicate a particular feature, number, step, operation, element, component, or combination of the foregoing, and should not be construed as primarily excluding the presence of one or more other features, numbers, steps, operations, elements, components, or combinations of the foregoing, or the possibility of adding one or more combinations of the foregoing.

[0030] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0031] Please see Figure 1 The diagram shows a flowchart of a method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, according to a specific embodiment. The method includes: S1: Obtain multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them and map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model to generate a structured set of interface information instances.

[0032] In a specific implementation, firstly, a 3D model, electrical schematic diagram, and wiring diagram of the electrical cabinet are acquired as multi-source heterogeneous design data. The 3D model file contains complete geometric information of the electrical cabinet and the assembly relationships of its components. The opening positions, mounting hole positions, and external dimensions of each interface on the panel have been modeled by mechanical designers based on the selection results. The electrical schematic diagram file graphically describes the electrical connection relationships of each component, the functional definitions of the interfaces, and the signal flow. The wiring diagram file records detailed wiring information such as terminal numbers, wire specifications, and connection targets for each interface in tabular form.

[0033] Secondly, a semantic annotation tool is used to perform entity recognition on the interface information in the multi-source heterogeneous design data, extracting interface type tags and attribute key-value pairs. This semantic annotation tool predefines an interface entity type dictionary and attribute key-value mapping rules for the electrical cabinet field. It can identify component entities marked as "connector," "socket," and "terminal block" from the attribute panel and feature tree of the 3D model, and extract attribute values ​​such as panel opening size, installation coordinates, and protection level from their parameter tables; identify each interface symbol from the block attributes and network labels of the electrical schematic diagram, and extract information such as interface type tags, rated voltage, rated current, number of contacts, and signal direction; and parse structured fields such as terminal number, wire cross-sectional area, and connected target equipment from the row records of the wiring table.

[0034] Then, the extraction results are mapped to the multi-dimensional interface information model. The multi-dimensional interface information model is an ontology model containing physical features, electrical features, protocol features, and security features, defined using the OWL ontology language to define the hierarchical structure and attribute constraints of the four feature classes. Specifically, the physical features include interface type, panel opening size, installation location coordinates, and protection level. The interface type value range includes enumerated values ​​such as rectangular connector, circular connector, terminal block, RJ45 socket, and USB interface. The panel opening size is recorded using two sub-attributes: width and height. The electrical features include rated voltage and rated current. The protocol features include communication protocol type and baud rate. The security features include grounding requirements and isolation voltage.

[0035] Next, a structured record is generated for each interface instance, represented as follows:

[0036] In the formula, For the first One interface instance, This is a unique identifier for this interface instance. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the electrical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the protocol features. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the security feature. The coordinates are the installation position of the interface in the three-dimensional space of the electrical cabinet.

[0037] Taking the panel interface of an industrial Ethernet switch cabinet as an example, a typical record of a PROFINET communication interface instance is as follows: It is “IF-PN01”; The elements in the vector are ["RJ45", "21.5mm×16.8mm", (1250,380,820), "IP54"], which correspond to the interface type, panel opening size, installation position coordinates in millimeters with the lower left corner of the cabinet as the origin, and protection level, respectively. The vector is [null, null], indicating that the interface is a purely signal interface and does not transmit power; The vector is ["PROFINETIO-Device", "100Mbps"], which corresponds to the communication protocol type and baud rate, respectively; The vector is ["grounded at both ends", "1500V"], which corresponds to the grounding requirement and isolation voltage, respectively; The coordinates are the installation position of the interface in the three-dimensional space of the electrical cabinet.

[0038] Finally, all interface instances constitute the interface information instance set. ,in This represents the total number of interface instances. This collection is stored in a structured data file.

[0039] S2: Extract the requirements for the interface from multiple standard and specification texts related to the electrical cabinet interface and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the interface information instance set as a reference, semantically align the requirements for the same interface in different standard specifications and establish association relationships to form a specification knowledge graph.

[0040] In a specific implementation, the first step is to identify the multiple standard specifications related to the electrical cabinet interfaces that need to be referenced. These standards include the IEC 61439 series, GB / T 7251 series, IEC 61918, IEC 61784 series, and internal company interface specifications. These standard specifications are imported into the system in PDF or structured document format.

[0041] Secondly, natural language processing is performed on the aforementioned standard specification texts. Mandatory and recommended requirements for interfaces are extracted from these texts through named entity recognition and dependency parsing. The processing flow consists of two stages: the first stage is named entity recognition, which uses a pre-trained electrical engineering named entity recognition model to identify interface type entities, attribute parameter entities, numerical range entities, conditional connectors, and mandatory degree identifiers from the text; the second stage is dependency parsing, which performs syntactic tree parsing on sentences containing the above entities to identify the dependency relationships between subject, predicate, object, and conditional adverbial clauses, thereby transforming the natural language-expressed specification clauses into structured condition-conclusion logical expressions.

[0042] Then, each requirement is structured into a condition-conclusion rule node, represented as follows:

[0043] In the formula, For the first Rule nodes, For interface instances Conditional predicates are used to limit the range of values, type constraints, and dependencies of interface properties. This is the conclusion of the rule. This is the identifier for the standard clause corresponding to this rule.

[0044] Taking the clause extracted from IEC 61918, "For RJ45 interfaces used with PROFINET, the shielding layer shall be grounded at both ends on the cabinet side and the field device side," as an example, the corresponding rule node is "IF interface type ( =RJ45 AND Protocol Type( =PROFINET THEN Grounding Requirements ( ) Must be 'grounded at both ends' ELSE Non-compliant REF IEC 61918-2023 §6.3.2".

[0045] Then, using the interface type tags and attribute key-value pairs extracted in step S1 as semantic anchors, semantic similarity is calculated for requirements involving the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specification texts. Based on the calculation results, at least one of the following relationships is established: equivalence relationship, substitution relationship, and conflict relationship.

[0046] The semantic similarity calculation, and the establishment of equivalent, substitution, and conflict relationships based on the calculation results, specifically includes: encoding the requirement texts for the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specifications into semantic vectors through a pre-trained language model, and calculating the cosine similarity between the semantic vectors; setting a first similarity threshold and a second similarity threshold, wherein the first similarity threshold is higher than the second similarity threshold, for example, set to 0.85 and 0.60 respectively; establishing an equivalent relationship when the cosine similarity is greater than or equal to the first similarity threshold; establishing a substitution relationship when the cosine similarity is less than the first similarity threshold but greater than or equal to the second similarity threshold; and establishing a conflict relationship when the cosine similarity is less than the second similarity threshold and the conditional predicates of the two requirements for the same interface attribute are mutually exclusive and the judgment conclusions are opposite.

[0047] Finally, the condition-conclusion rule nodes are used as nodes, and the established equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships are used as edges to form the normative knowledge graph. . It is stored in the form of a graph database. The node attributes include the conditional predicate expression, decision conclusion and source standard clause identifier of the rule node, and the edge attributes include the relation type and semantic similarity value.

[0048] S3: Input the set of interface information instances and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model to generate a structured verification report.

[0049] In a specific implementation, firstly, the interface information instance set is... With the aforementioned standard knowledge graph Common input hybrid inference engine, hybrid inference engine loading and Initialize the structured verification report Empty.

[0050] Then, rule-based reasoning is performed. The rule-based reasoning process includes: traversal... Each rule node For each interface instance Perform conditional predicate Truth determination. The determination process is as follows: Analysis The attribute constraints in the interface instance The actual attribute value is obtained from the corresponding feature vector, and compared with the value range, enumerated value, or logical expression in the limiting conditions. When the same interface instance needs to meet multiple sets of standards and specifications simultaneously, the judgment benchmark is selected according to the strictest value principle, and a rule-level judgment result is generated. For example, IEC61439-2 and GB / T7251.1 require the electrical clearance of the main bus interface to be no less than 5.0mm and no less than 5.5mm, respectively. After the inference engine identifies the two limit requirements, it automatically selects 5.5mm as the judgment benchmark; if the measured clearance is 5.2mm, the interface instance is judged as non-compliant according to the strictest value principle.

[0051] Next, ontology verification reasoning is performed. The ontology verification reasoning process includes: performing on each interface instance based on the description logic. Automatic classification of compliant subclasses is performed, and semantic inconsistencies between protocol feature attributes and interface physical types are detected. The inference engine automatically classifies interface instances into compliant subclasses based on axioms defined in the ontology, while simultaneously detecting semantic inconsistencies between protocol feature attributes and interface physical types: when an interface instance... vector Values ​​and vectors of the communication protocol types contained therein A semantic contradiction is determined when the protocol compatibility set defined by the values ​​of the interface types contained in the code does not match. For example, when an interface instance... physical feature vector The interface type is "RS232" and the protocol feature vector When the communication protocol type is "ModbusTCP", the inference engine determines... The value of the included communication protocol type is not Within the protocol compatibility set defined by the values ​​of the included interface types, a semantic contradiction determination result is generated.

[0052] Next, topology constraint solving based on the graph model is performed. The process of solving topology constraints based on the graph model includes: setting the interface information instance set... All interface instances are abstracted into a graph model , where the set of nodes edge set Signal connection relationships are extracted from electrical schematics and wiring diagrams: if there is a wire or network label connection between two interface symbols in the electrical schematic, or a wire connection record between the terminals of two interfaces in the wiring diagram, then an undirected edge is established between the corresponding nodes. This is derived from the aforementioned specification knowledge graph. The topological constraints are extracted, including high and low voltage interface isolation spacing constraints, redundant interface symmetry constraints, and strong and weak current separation constraints. Spacing calculation, subgraph isomorphic matching, and constraint solving are performed on the graph model to determine the compliance of the overall cabinet interface layout.

[0053] Specifically, performing subgraph isomorphic matching on the graph model includes: based on the graph model... A vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics of each interface instance. Interface instances with the same interface type and whose installation locations satisfy a preset symmetry relationship are grouped into the same redundant interface group to determine the graph model. A subset of interface nodes belonging to the same redundant interface group A vector composed of the values ​​of various attributes in the physical characteristics of the first interface instance in the redundant interface group. and installation location coordinates Based on this, a pattern subgraph is constructed; using the subgraph isomorphism algorithm, a pattern subgraph is constructed within the graph model. The remaining interface nodes in the redundant interface group are matched one by one with subgraphs to verify the structural consistency of each redundant interface with the pattern subgraph in terms of interface type, attribute value and connection relationship. When any redundant interface does not match the pattern subgraph, it is determined that the symmetry constraint of the redundant interface is violated.

[0054] Finally, the results of the three reasoning mechanisms are combined. When any one of the three mechanisms—rule-based reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model topology constraint solving—generates a non-compliance judgment for a certain interface instance, the interface instance is marked as a non-compliance, and a structured verification report is generated. The structured verification report For each interface instance Record the compliance determination results and, for each interface instance marked as non-compliant, record the rule node reference that led to the non-compliance determination. Structured Validation Report Organized in JSON format, it includes fields such as interface instance identifier, judgment conclusion enumeration value, non-compliant rule reference list, and the type of inference mechanism involved.

[0055] S4: Based on the structured verification report, generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-compliance items, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the full-process verification data.

[0056] In a specific implementation, firstly, the structured verification report is used... For the input data, extract the set of interface instances marked as non-conformities, and on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, determine the installation location coordinates of each non-conformity interface instance. Highlighted markers are generated at each point, forming a compliance heatmap. A red, semi-transparent sphere is used as the visual representation of the marker, with its radius scaled proportionally to the actual size of the interface to ensure visibility in the overall view. Simultaneously, green markers indicate the location of all compliant interfaces, creating a complete compliance heatmap that allows designers to clearly understand the compliance status distribution of interfaces across the entire cabinet.

[0057] Secondly, for each non-conforming interface instance, from the structured validation report... The system extracts the rule nodes that lead to non-compliance determinations and displays the full text of the non-compliant standard clauses, modification suggestions generated based on the rule type, and recommended alternative parts retrieved from the component library on the interface. When a designer clicks on a highlighted mark in the 3D view, the system pops up an information panel displaying the above information, allowing the designer to directly decide on modification plans based on this information.

[0058] Finally, a hash operation is performed on the data from the entire verification process to generate blockchain evidence. The data from the entire verification process includes the set of interface information instances. The aforementioned standard knowledge graph The intermediate decision results of the hybrid inference engine and the structured verification report. The intermediate judgment results include rule-by-rule judgment records, ontology verification reasoning classification results, and the spacing calculation values ​​and subgraph matching conclusions from the graph model topological constraint solution. After calculating hash digests for each of the four types of data, they are concatenated in timestamp order and the hash value is calculated again. This hash value is then written into the blockchain evidence storage system. Blockchain evidence storage generates immutable timestamp evidence for each verification operation. When compliance audits, quality responsibility determinations, or certification reviews are required, the integrity and authenticity of the entire process data can be verified by comparing the evidence hash value.

[0059] In this embodiment, a four-feature ontology model comprising physical, electrical, protocol, and security features is constructed. Semantic annotation tools are used to automatically map heterogeneous source data, such as the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, electrical schematics, and wiring diagrams, into a structured set of interface information instances. Based on this, natural language processing is performed on multiple standard specification texts to extract condition-conclusion rule nodes. Semantic similarity calculations are then used to establish cross-standard equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships, forming a specification knowledge graph. A hybrid inference engine then performs rule-based reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on descriptive logic, and graph model topology constraint solving—a multi-mechanism joint compliance analysis. Finally, a compliance heatmap is generated on the 3D model, displaying standard clauses and modification suggestions. Simultaneously, blockchain evidence is generated for the entire verification process data, achieving multi-level automated verification from single-interface attribute verification to whole-cabinet topology verification. This significantly improves the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and traceability of electrical cabinet interface compliance verification.

[0060] like Figure 2 As shown, the following are embodiments of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis system based on specification compliance provided in this disclosure. This system and the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance in the above embodiments belong to the same inventive concept. For details not described in detail in the embodiments of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis system based on specification compliance, please refer to the embodiments of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance described above.

[0061] A system for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, comprising: The interface information standardization modeling module is used to acquire multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them, map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model, and generate a structured set of interface information instances.

[0062] The specification knowledge graph construction module is used to extract interface requirements from multiple standard specification texts related to electrical cabinet interfaces and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the interface information instance set as references, it performs semantic alignment and establishes association relationships for the requirements of the same interface in different standard specifications to form a specification knowledge graph.

[0063] The joint reasoning verification module is used to input the interface information instance set and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model, to generate a structured verification report.

[0064] The verification result visualization module is used to generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet based on the structured verification report, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-conformities, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the data of the entire verification process.

[0065] The electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis system provided in this embodiment realizes multi-level automated compliance verification of electrical cabinet interfaces from single interface attributes to the overall cabinet layout, which significantly improves the comprehensiveness, accuracy and traceability of verification, and effectively reduces rework costs and safety hazards caused by interface mismatch.

[0066] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of the hardware structure of an electronic device for implementing various embodiments of the present invention.

[0067] The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance provided in this application can be applied to electronic devices. Those skilled in the art will understand that the electronic device structure involved in the embodiments of this invention does not constitute a limitation on the electronic device. An electronic device may include more or fewer components than illustrated, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements. In the embodiments of this invention, electronic devices include, but are not limited to, laptop computers, desktop computers, workbenches, personal digital assistants, servers, blade servers, mainframe computers, and other suitable computers. Electronic devices may also represent various forms of mobile devices, such as personal digital processors, cellular phones, smartphones, wearable devices, and other similar computing devices. The components shown herein, their connections and relationships, and their functions are merely examples and are not intended to limit the implementation of the embodiments of this application described and / or claimed herein.

[0068] Electronic devices may include processors, external memory interfaces, internal memory, universal serial bus (USB) interfaces, charging management modules, power management modules, batteries, wireless communication modules, audio modules, speakers, microphones, sensor modules, buttons, cameras, displays, and SIM card interfaces, etc.

[0069] A processor may include one or more processing units, such as: a central processing unit (CPU), an application processor (AP), a modem processor, a graphics processing unit (GPU), an image signal processor (ISP), a controller, memory, a video codec, a digital signal processor (DSP), a baseband processor, and / or a neural network processing unit (NPU). Different processing units may be independent devices or integrated into one or more processors.

[0070] The processor can serve as the nerve center and command center of an electronic device. The controller can generate operation control signals based on the instruction opcode and timing signals to control the fetching and execution of instructions.

[0071] The processor may also include memory for storing instructions and data. In some embodiments, the memory in the processor is a cache memory. This memory can store instructions or data that the processor has just used or that are used repeatedly. If the processor needs to use the instruction or data again, it can retrieve it directly from this memory. This avoids repeated accesses, reduces processor latency, and thus improves system efficiency.

[0072] An external storage interface (ESI) can be used to connect external memory cards, such as microSD cards, to expand the storage capacity of electronic devices. The external memory card communicates with the processor through the ESI to perform data storage functions, such as saving music and video files on the external memory card.

[0073] Internal memory can be used to store computer executable program code, which includes instructions. The processor executes various functional applications and data processing of electronic devices by running the instructions stored in internal memory. Internal memory can include a program storage area and a data storage area. Internal memory can include high-speed random access memory, and can also include non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage device, flash memory device, universal flash storage (UFS), etc.

[0074] Wireless communication functionality in electronic devices can be achieved through antennas, wireless communication modules, modem processors, and baseband processors.

[0075] Wireless communication modules can provide solutions for wireless communication applications in electronic devices, including wireless local area networks (WLANs) (such as wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) networks), Bluetooth (BT), global navigation satellite system (GNSS), frequency modulation (FM), near field communication (NFC), and infrared (IR) technologies.

[0076] Electronic devices can implement audio functions through audio modules, speakers, receivers, microphones, headphone jacks, and application processors.

[0077] Electronic devices can achieve shooting functions through ISPs, cameras, video codecs, GPUs, displays, and application processors.

[0078] Electronic devices can achieve display functions through GPUs, displays, and application processors.

[0079] A GPU is a microprocessor for image processing, connected to the display screen and application processor. GPUs are used to perform mathematical and geometric calculations for graphics rendering. A processor may include one or more GPUs, which execute program instructions to generate or modify display information.

[0080] A display screen is used to display images, videos, etc. A display screen includes a display panel.

[0081] The aforementioned electronic device implements the standardization interface information verification and analysis method for electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, which obtains multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets and maps it to a four-feature ontology model to generate a set of structured interface information instances. It constructs a specification knowledge graph with semantic alignment of multiple standards and specifications, and uses a hybrid inference engine to perform multi-mechanism joint compliance analysis of rule inference, ontology verification inference, and graph model topology constraint solving. It generates a visual compliance display and blockchain evidence, achieving the beneficial effects of multi-level automated verification of electrical cabinet interfaces from single interface attributes to the overall cabinet layout, significantly improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of verification, and effectively reducing the risk of interface mismatch.

[0082] The storage medium provided in this application stores a program product capable of implementing a method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on compliance with specifications.

[0083] In some possible implementations, the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance of this disclosure can be implemented as a program product, which includes program code. When the program product is run on a terminal device, the program code is used to cause the terminal device to perform the steps described in the "Exemplary Methods" section above according to various exemplary embodiments of this disclosure.

[0084] The storage medium disclosed herein may be any combination of one or more readable media. A readable medium may be a readable signal medium or a readable storage medium. A readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any combination thereof. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of readable storage media include: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable disk, a hard disk, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), optical fiber, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage device, magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof.

[0085] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables those skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1: Obtain multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them and map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model to generate a structured set of interface information instances; S2: Extract the requirements for the interface from multiple standard and specification texts related to the electrical cabinet interface and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the set of interface information instances as a reference, semantically align the requirements for the same interface in different standard specifications and establish association relationships to form a specification knowledge graph. S3: Input the set of interface information instances and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model to generate a structured verification report; S4: Based on the structured verification report, generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-compliance items, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the full-process verification data.

2. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Step S1 includes: The three-dimensional model, electrical schematic diagram and wiring table of the electrical cabinet are obtained as multi-source heterogeneous design data. Semantic annotation tools are used to perform entity recognition on the interface information in the multi-source heterogeneous design data, and interface type labels and attribute key-value pairs are extracted. The extraction results are mapped to the multi-dimensional interface information model, which is an ontology model containing physical features, electrical features, protocol features, and security features. The physical features include interface type, panel opening size, installation location coordinates, and protection level. The electrical features include rated voltage and rated current. The protocol features include communication protocol type and baud rate. The security features include grounding requirements and isolation voltage. Generate a structured record for each interface instance, represented as follows: in, For the first One interface instance, This is a unique identifier for this interface instance. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the electrical characteristics. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the protocol features. It is a vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the security feature. These are the coordinates of the interface's installation location in the three-dimensional space of the electrical cabinet; An interface information instance set is constructed based on all interface instances. ,in This represents the total number of interface instances.

3. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance as described in claim 2, characterized in that, Step S2 includes: Natural language processing is performed on various standard specification texts related to electrical cabinet interfaces, including IEC 61439 series standards, GB / T 7251 series standards, IEC 61918 standards, IEC 61784 series standards, and internal enterprise interface specification texts. Mandatory and recommended requirements for interfaces are extracted from the multiple standard specification texts using named entity recognition and dependency parsing. Each requirement is structured into a condition-conclusion rule node, represented as follows: in, For the first Rule nodes, For interface instances Conditional predicates are used to limit the range of values, type constraints, and dependencies of interface properties. This is the conclusion of the rule. This is the identifier for the standard clause corresponding to this rule; Using the extracted interface type tags and attribute key-value pairs as semantic anchors, semantic similarity is calculated for requirements involving the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specification texts. Based on the calculation results, at least one of the following relationships is established: equivalence, substitution, and conflict. Using the condition-conclusion rule nodes as nodes and the established equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships as edges, a canonical knowledge graph is formed. .

4. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance as described in claim 3, characterized in that, Step S3 includes: The set of interface information instances With the aforementioned standard knowledge graph Input the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning, including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model-based topology constraint solving; The rule-based reasoning process includes: Traversal Each rule node For each interface instance Perform conditional predicate For truth value determination, when the same interface instance needs to meet multiple sets of standard specifications at the same time, the judgment benchmark is selected according to the strictest value principle, and a rule-level judgment result is generated. The ontology verification reasoning process includes: Based on the description logic, each interface instance Automatically classify compliant subclasses and detect semantic contradictions between protocol feature attributes and interface physical types when an interface instance... vector Values ​​and vectors of the communication protocol types contained therein If the set of protocol compatibility defined by the values ​​of the interface types contained in the code does not match, a semantic contradiction is determined to exist. The process of solving the topological constraints based on the graph model includes: The set of interface information instances All interface instances are abstracted into a graph model ; The node set is ; The edge set is ; From the aforementioned normative knowledge graph The topological constraints are extracted, and the graph model is subjected to spacing calculation, subgraph isomorphic matching, and constraint solving to determine the compliance of the overall cabinet interface layout. The topological constraints include high and low voltage interface isolation spacing constraints, redundant interface symmetry constraints, and strong and weak current separation constraints. When any of the mechanisms in rule-based reasoning, ontology verification reasoning, and graph model topology constraint solving generates a non-compliance judgment for a certain interface instance, the interface instance is marked as a non-compliance, and each interface instance is recorded. The conformity assessment results are used to generate a structured verification report. .

5. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance as described in claim 4, characterized in that, Step S4 includes: According to the structured verification report Extract the set of interface instances marked as non-conformities, and then calculate the installation position coordinates of each non-conformity interface instance on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet. Highlighting and marking these areas creates a compliance heatmap; For each non-conforming interface instance, from the structured validation report Extract the rule node references that lead to non-compliance judgments, and display the full text of the non-compliant standard clauses, modification suggestions generated based on the rule type, and recommended alternative parts information retrieved from the component library on the display interface; Based on the interface information instance set Standardized knowledge graphs Intermediate decision results and structured verification reports from the hybrid inference engine Generate full-process verification data, perform hash operations on the full-process verification data, and generate blockchain evidence.

6. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance according to claim 4, characterized in that, Subgraph isomorphism matching of the graph model includes: According to the graphical model A vector composed of the values ​​of each attribute in the physical characteristics of each interface instance. Interface instances with the same interface type and whose installation locations satisfy a preset symmetry relationship are grouped into the same redundant interface group to determine the graph model. A subset of interface nodes belonging to the same redundant interface group ; A vector formed by the values ​​of various attributes in the physical characteristics of the first interface instance in the redundant interface group. and installation location coordinates Based on this, construct a pattern subgraph; Using the subgraph isomorphism algorithm, in the graph model The remaining interface nodes in the redundant interface group are matched one by one with subgraphs to verify the structural consistency of each redundant interface with the pattern subgraph in terms of interface type, attribute value and connection relationship. When any redundant interface does not match the pattern subgraph, it is determined that the symmetry constraint of the redundant interface is violated.

7. The method for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance according to claim 3, characterized in that, The process involves calculating semantic similarity for requirements with the same interface type and attributes in different standard specification texts, and establishing equivalence, substitution, and conflict relationships based on the calculation results, including: The text of requirements for the same interface type and the same attribute in different standard specifications is encoded into semantic vectors through a pre-trained language model, and the cosine similarity between semantic vectors is calculated. A first similarity threshold and a second similarity threshold are set, wherein the first similarity threshold is higher than the second similarity threshold; When the cosine similarity is greater than or equal to the first similarity threshold, an equivalent relationship is established; When the cosine similarity is less than the first similarity threshold and greater than or equal to the second similarity threshold, a substitution relationship is established; A conflict relationship is established when the cosine similarity is less than the second similarity threshold and the two conditional predicates that require the same interface attribute are mutually exclusive and have opposite judgment conclusions.

8. A system for verifying and analyzing standardized interface information of electrical cabinets based on specification compliance, characterized in that, The system employs the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance as described in any one of claims 1 to 7; The system includes: The interface information standardization modeling module is used to acquire multi-source heterogeneous design data of electrical cabinets, extract interface information from them and map it to a predefined multi-dimensional interface information model to generate a structured set of interface information instances. The specification knowledge graph construction module is used to extract interface requirements from multiple standard specification texts related to electrical cabinet interfaces and construct them as condition-conclusion rule nodes. Using the interface type and attribute fields corresponding to the interface information instance set as a reference, it performs semantic alignment and establishes association relationships for the requirements of the same interface in different standard specifications to form a specification knowledge graph. The joint reasoning verification module is used to input the interface information instance set and the specification knowledge graph into the hybrid reasoning engine, and perform multi-mechanism joint reasoning including rule reasoning, ontology verification reasoning based on description logic, and topology constraint solving based on graph model, to generate a structured verification report. The verification result visualization module is used to generate a visual compliance display on the 3D model of the electrical cabinet based on the structured verification report, display the standard clause information and modification suggestions for non-conformities, and generate tamper-proof and reliable evidence based on the data of the entire verification process.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the program, it implements the steps of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of the electrical cabinet standardized interface information verification and analysis method based on specification compliance as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images