On marrying ontological and metamodeling technical spaces

ABSTRACT

In software engineering, the use of models and metamodeling approaches (e.g., MDA with MOF/UML) for purposes such as software design or software validation is an established practice. Ontologies constitute domain models formalized using expressive logic languages for class definitions and rules. Hence, when seen from an abstract point of view, the two paradigms and their various technological spaces seem closely related. However, in the state-of-the-art research and practice the two technologies are just beginning to converge and the relationship between the two is still under exploration. In this paper, we give an outline of current ontology technologies, such as the Semantic Web standards for a Web Ontology Language (OWL). Then, we describe a domain analysis of the different technical spaces, explaining the features of the different paradigms. Eventually, we describe some avenues for integrating various ontological technical spaces into meta modeling technical spaces.

REFERENCES

• 1: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP, October 2002.
• 2: J. Angele and G. Lausen. Ontologies in F-logic. In Handbook on Ontologies, pages 29--50. 2004.
• 3: L. Apostel. Towards the formal study of models in a non formal science. Synthese, 12:125--161, 1960.
• 4: Colin Atkinson , Thomas Kühne, Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation, IEEE Software, v.20 n.5, p.36-41, September 2003 [doi>10.1109/MS.2003.1231149]
• 5: Franz Baader , Diego Calvanese , Deborah L. McGuinness , Daniele Nardi , Peter F. Patel-Schneider, The Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2007
• 6: K. Baclawski, M. M. Kokar, P. A. Kogut, L. Hart, J. E. Smith, J. Letkowski, and P. Emery. Extending the unified modeling language for ontology development. Software and System Modeling, 1(2):142--156, 2002.
• 7: Daniela Berardi , Diego Calvanese , Giuseppe De Giacomo, Reasoning on UML class diagrams, Artificial Intelligence, v.168 n.1, p.70-118, October 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2005.05.003]
• 8: J. Bézivin. On the unification power of models. Software and System Modeling, 4(2):171--188, 2005.
• 9: J. Bézivin, G. Dupé, F. Jouault, G. Pitette, and J. Rougui. First experiments with the ATL Model transformation language: Transforming XSLT into XQuery. In OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture. 2003.
• 10: Andreas Billig , Susanne Busse , Andreas Leicher , Jörn Guy Süß, Platform independent model transformation based on triple, Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IFIP/USENIX international conference on Middleware, October 18-22, 2004, Toronto, Canada
• 11: S. Brinkkemper. Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Developement Methods and Tools. Information & Software Technology, 38(4):275--280, 1996.
• 12: S. Brockmans, R. Volz, A. Eberhart, and P. Löffler. Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In Proc. of ISWC 2004, pages 198--213, 2004.
• 13: D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. DL-lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In Proc. of AAAI 2005, pages 602--607, 2005.
• 14: S. Cranefield and M. K. Purvis. UML as an ontology modelling language. In Intelligent Information Integration, volume 23 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1999.
• 15: K. Czarnecki and S. Helsen. Classification of model transformation approaches. Proceedings of the 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of the Model Driven Architecture, 2003.
• 16: S. Decker, M. Sintek, A. Billig, N. Henze, P. Dolog, W. Nejdl, A. Harth, A. Leicher, S. Busse, J. L. Ambite, M. Weathers, G. Neumann, and U. Zdun. TRIPLE - an RDF rule language with context and use cases. In Rule Languages for Interoperability, 2005.
• 17: D. Djurić, D. Gašević, V. Devedžić, and V. Damjanovic. A UML profile for OWL ontologies. In MDAFA, pages 204--219, 2004.
• 18: K. Falkovych, M. Sabou, and H. Stuckenschmidt. Uml for the semantic web: Transformation-based approaches. In Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pages 92--106. 2003.
• 19: R. Fikes, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. OWL-QL: A language for deductive query answering on the semantic web. Technical Report KSL 03--14, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003.
• 20: D. Frankel, P. Hayes, E. Kendall, and D. McGuinness. The model driven semantic web. In 1st International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web (MDSW2004), Monterey, California, USA, 2004.
• 21: Dragan Gašević , Dragan Djurić , Vladan Devedžić, MDA-based Automatic OWL Ontology Development, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), v.9 n.2, p.103-117, March 2007 [doi>10.1007/s10009-006-0002-1]
• 22: P. Haase, J. Broekstra, A. Eberhart, and R. Volz. A comparison of rdf query languages. In Proc. of ISWC 2004, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004.
• 23: G. Kappel, E. Kapsammer, H. Kargl, G. Kramler, T. Reiter, W. Retschitzegger, W. Schwinger, and M. Wimmer. Lifting metamodels to ontologies: A step to the semantic integration of modeling languages. In Proc. of MoDELS 2006, volume 4199 of LNCS, pages 528--542. Springer, 2006.
• 24: Anneke G. Kleppe , Jos Warmer , Wim Bast, MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2003
• 25: H. Knublauch, D. Oberle, P. Tetlow, and E. Wallace. A semantic web primer for object-oriented software developers. W3c working group note, W3C, Mar. 2006.
• 26: A. Kubias, S. Schenk, S. Staab, and J. Z. Pan. OWL SAIQL - an OWL DL query language for ontology extraction. In Proc. of OWLED-07, 2007.
• 27: Juergen Ebert , Bernt Kullbach , Andreas Winter, Querying as an Enabling Technology in Software Reengineering, Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, p.42, March 03-05, 1999
• 28: I. Kurtev, J. Bézivin, and M. Aksit. Technological spaces: An initial appraisal. In CoopIS, DOA'2002 Federated Conferences, Industrial track, Irvine, 2002.
• 29: J. W. Lloyd, Foundations of logic programming; (2nd extended ed.), Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 1987
• 30: D. L. Mcguinness and F. van Harmelen. OWL web ontology language overview, February 2004.
• 31: J. Miller and J. Mukerji. Mda guide version 1.0.1. Technical report, OMG, 2003.
• 32: Boris Motik , Ian Horrocks , Ulrike Sattler, Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases, Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, May 08-12, 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada [doi>10.1145/1242572.1242681]
• 33: B. Motik and R. Rosati. A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In M. M. Veloso, editor, IJCAI, pages 477--482, 2007.
• 34: B. Motik, U. Sattler, and R. Studer. Query answering for owl-dl with rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(1):41--60, 2005.
• 35: Daniel Oberle , Andreas Eberhart , Steffen Staab , Raphael Volz, Developing and managing software components in an ontology-based application server, Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IFIP/USENIX international conference on Middleware, October 18-22, 2004, Toronto, Canada
• 36: OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. Object Modeling Group, 2000.
• 37: OMG. MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification. Object Modeling Group, June 2005.
• 38: OMG. Object Constraint Language Specification, version 2.0. Object Modeling Group, June 2005.
• 39: OMG. Ontology Definition Metamodel. Object Modeling Group, August 2005.
• 40: OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1.1. Object Modeling Group, February 2007.
• 41: E. Prud'hommeaux and A. Seaborne. SPARQL query language for RDF (working draft). Technical report, W3C, March 2007.
• 42: A. L. Rector, N. Drummond, M. Horridge, J. Rogers, H. Knublauch, R. Stevens, H. Wang, and C. Wroe. OWL pizzas: Practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: Common errors & common patterns. In Proc. of EKAW 2004, pages 63--81, 2004.
• 43: S. Roser and B. Bauer. An approach to automatically generated model transformations using ontology engineering space. In Proceedings of Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE), Athens, GA, U.S.A., 2006.
• 44: F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, and A. Winter. TwoUse: Integrating UML models and OWL ontologies. Technical Report 16/2007, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fachbereich Informatik, 4 2007.
• 45: Steffen Staab , Rudi Studer , Hans-Peter Schnurr , York Sure, Knowledge Processes and Ontologies, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.16 n.1, p.26-34, January 2001 [doi>10.1109/5254.912382]
• 46: R. V. D. Straeten, T. Mens, J. Simmonds, and V. Jonckers. Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In Proc. of UML 2003, volume 2863 of LNCS, pages 326--340. Springer, 2003.
• 47: G. Taentzer. AGG: A graph transformation environment for modeling and validation of software. In Second International Workshop AGTIVE 2003, volume 3062 of LNCS, pages 446 -- 453. Springer, 2004.
• 48: P. Tetlow, J. Z. Pan, D. Oberle, E. Wallace, M. Uschold, and E. Kendall. Ontology driven architectures and potential uses of the semantic web in systems and software engineering. W3C Working Draft Working Group Note 2006/02/11, W3C, 03 2006.
• 49: W3C. Resource description framework (rdf). http://www.w3.org/RDF/, 2004.
• 50: E. D. Willink. UMLX: A graphical transformation language for MDA. In A. Rensink, editor, TR-CTIT-03-27, pages 13--24, Enschede, 2003.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: Computer-aided software engineering (CASE)

Keywords:
meta modeling, model driven engineering, ontology