Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 83–108 | Cite as

An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling

  • Tobias Walter
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
  • Steffen Staab
Theme Section Paper


Domain-specific languages (DSLs) provide abstractions and notations for better understanding and easier modeling of applications in a special domain. Current shortcomings of DSLs include learning curve and formal semantics. This paper reports on a framework that allows the use of ontology technologies to describe and reason on DSLs. The formal semantics of OWL together with reasoning services allows for addressing constraint definition, progressive evaluation, suggestions, and debugging. The approach integrates existing metamodels and concrete syntaxes in a new technical space. A scenario in which domain models for network devices are created illustrates the framework.


Domain-specific modeling Ontology technologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kelly S., Tolvanen J.P.: Domain-Specific Modeling. Wiley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gray, J., Fisher, K., Consel, C., Karsai, G., Mernik, M., Tolvanen, J.P.: Panel-DSLs: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In: OOPSLA Companion ’08. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langlois, B., Jitia, C.E., Jouenne, E.: DSL classification. In: OOPSLA 7th Workshop on Domain Specific Modeling (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czarnecki, K.: Generative programming. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science and Automation Technical University of Ilmenau (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader F., Calvanese D., McGuinness D., Nardi D., Patel-Schneider P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. Accessed Oct 2009
  7. 7.
    Tairas, R., Mernik, M., Gray, J.: Using ontologies in the domain analysis of domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering 2008. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 395. (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guizzardi, G., Pires, L.F., van Sinderen, M.: Ontology-based evaluation and design of domain-specific visual modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Systems Development. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bräuer, M., Lochmann, H.: An ontology for software models and its practical implications for semantic web reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 34–48. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    France, R.B., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering (FOSE), pp. 37–54 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nuseibeh B., Easterbrook S., Russo A.: Leveraging inconsistency in software development. Softw. Dev. 33(4), 24–29 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Aksit, M.: Technological spaces: an initial appraisal. In: CoopIS, DOA’2002 Federated Conferences. Industrial track, Irvine (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: a DSL for metamodel specification. In: Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. LNCS, vol. 4037, 171–185. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ATLAS Group LINA & INRIA, Nantes: KM3: Kernel MetaMetaModel, Manual version 0.3 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parreiras F.S., Staab S.: Using ontologies with UML class-based modeling: the TwoUse approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(11), 1194–1207 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: an ontology-based framework for domain-specific languages. In: Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 12th International Conference, MODELS. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S., Ebert, J.: Joint language and domain engineering. In: Proceedings of European Conference Modelling Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 321–336. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Staab, S.: What is an ontology? Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 1–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miksa, K., Kasztelnik, M.: Definition of the case study requirements. Deliverable ICT216691/CMR/WP5-D1/D/PU/b1, Comarch (2008). MOST Project,
  20. 20.
    Farrugia, J.: Model-theoretic semantics for the web. In: WWW ’03: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA, pp. 29–38. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics. Accessed Oct 2009
  22. 22.
    Horridge, M., Knublauch, H., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Wroe, C.: A practical guide to building OWL ontologies using the protégé-OWL plugin and CO-ODE tools. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donini F.M., Lenzerini M., Nardi D., Nutt W., Schaerf A.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artif. Intell. 100(1–2), 225–274 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grimm, S., Motik, B.: Closed world reasoning in the semantic web through epistemic operators. In: Proceedings of the 1st OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED-2005). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 188. (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sirin E., Parsia B., Grau B.C., Kalyanpur A., Katz Y.: Pellet: a practical OWL-DL Reasoner. Web Semantics: Sci. Services Agents World Wide Web 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. Accessed June 2010
  27. 27.
    Polleres, A.: SPARQL 1.1: new features and friends (OWL2, RIF). In: Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 23–26. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: SPARQL-DL: SPARQL Query for OWL-DL. In: Proceedings of the 3rd OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED-2007). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 258. (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kremen, P., Sirin, E.: SPARQL-DL implementation experience. In: Proceedings of the 4th OWL Experiences and Directions DC Workshop (OWLED-DC-2008). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 496. (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glimm, B., Parsia, B.: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. Accessed Jan 2010
  31. 31.
    Schneider, M.: SPARQLAS—implementing SPARQL queries with OWL syntax. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 604. (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification. Object Management Group (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ebert, J., Riediger, V., Winter, A.: Graph technology in reverse engineering, the TGraph approach. In: Proceedings of Workshop Software Reengineering (WSR). LNI, vol. 126, pp. 67–81. GI (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Djuric D., Gasevic D., Devedzic V.: Ontology modeling and MDA. J. Object Technol. 4(1), 109–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gaševic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V., Damjanovic, V.: Approaching OWL and MDA through technological spaces. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steinberg D., Budinsky F., Paternostro M., Merks E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horridge, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax. Accessed Oct 2009
  38. 38.
    Heidenreich, F., Johannes, J., Karol, S., Seifert, M., Wende., C.: Derivation and refinement of textual syntax for models. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Model-Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 114–129. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Der Straeten, R.: Inconsistency management in model-driven engineering. An approach using description logics. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Finkelstein, A., Spanoudakis, G., Till, D.: Managing interference. In: ISAW ’96: Joint Proceedings of the Second International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-2) and International Workshop on Multiple Perspectives in Software Development (Viewpoints ’96) on SIGSOFT ’96 Workshops, pp. 172–174. ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. In: Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 329–380 (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and repair of OWL ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: a challenging model transformation. In: Proceedings of Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MoDELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 436–450. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jackson D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang H., Dong J., Sun J., Sun J.: Reasoning support for Semantic Web ontology family languages using alloy. Multiagent Grid Syst. 2(4), 455–471 (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gerber, A., Lawley, M., Raymond, K., Steel, J., Wood, A.: Transformation: the missing link of MDA. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Graph Transformation. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 90–105. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA’05 (2005)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Czarnecki, K., Pietroszek, K.: Verifying feature-based model templates against well-formedness ocl constraints. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, pp. 211–220. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Warmer J., Kleppe A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA. Addison-Wesley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    White J., Schmidt D.C., Nechypurenko A., Wuchner E.: Model intelligence: an approach to modeling guidance. UPGRADE 9(2), 22–28 (2008)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mazanek, S., Minas, M.: Business process models as a showcase for syntax-based assistance in diagram editors. In: Proceedings of Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS). LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 322–336. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mazanek, S., Maier, S., Minas, M.: Auto-completion for diagram editors based on graph grammars. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computings, PP. 242–245. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Berardi D., Calvanese D., Giacomo G.D.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walter, T., Schwarz, H., Ren, Y.: Establishing a bridge from graph-based modeling languages to ontology languages. In: Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering (TWOMDE). Volume CEUR of 604. (2010)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Evans, A.S.: Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques, pp. 102–113. IEEE Computer Society (1998)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ebert, J., Winter, A., Dahm, P., Franzke, A., Süttenbach, R.: Graph based modeling and implementation with EER/GRAL. In: Proceedings of Conceptual Modeling-ER’96. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 163–178. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Description of the racer system and its applications. In: Proceedings of Description Logics Workshop. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 49. (2001)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bartho, A., Zivkovic, S.: Modeled software guidance/engineering processes and systems. Deliverable ICT216691/TUD/WP2-D2/D/PU/b1.00. Technial University Dresden, BOC (2009). MOST Project,
  59. 59.
    Miksa, K., Sabina, P., Zivkovic, S.: First demonstrator and report on experiences. Deliverable ICT216691/CMR/WP5-D3/D/PU/b1, Comarch (2010). MOST Project,
  60. 60.
    Miksa, K.: Evaluation of case study. Deliverable ICT216691/CMR/WP5-D4/D/RE/b1, Comarch (2011). MOST Project,
  61. 61.
    Kappel, G., Wimmer, M., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Leveraging model-based tool integration by conceptual modeling techniques. In: The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 254–284. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.: Merging models with the epsilon merging language (EML). In: Proceedings of International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS). LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 215–229. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Walter
    • 1
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.WeST—Institute for Web Science and TechnologyKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations