Advertisement

Transforming OntoUML into Alloy: towards conceptual model validation using a lightweight formal method

  • Bernardo F. B. Braga
  • João Paulo Andrade Almeida
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
  • Alessander B. Benevides
Original Paper

Abstract

While conceptual modeling is strongly related to the final quality of the software product, conceptual modeling itself remains a challenging activity. In particular, modelers must ensure that conceptual models properly formalize their intended conceptualization of a domain. This paper proposes an approach to facilitate the validation process of conceptual models defined in OntoUML by transforming these models into specifications in the logic-based language Alloy and using its analyzer to generate instances of the model and assertion counter-examples. By allowing the observation of sequences of snapshots of model instances, the dynamics of object creation, classification, association and destruction are revealed. This confronts the modeler with the implications of modeling choices and allows them to uncover mistakes or gain confidence in the quality of conceptual models.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling OntoUML Validation Lightweight formal methods Alloy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anastasakis K, Bordbar B, Georg G, Ray I (2009) On challenges of model transformation from uml to alloy. Softw Syst Model (to appear)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachman CW, Daya M (1977) The role concept in data models. In: VLDB ’1977: Proceedings of the third international conference on Very large data bases, VLDB Endowment, pp 464–476Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beato ME, Barrio-Solórzano M, Cuesta CE (2004) UML automatic verification tool (TABU). In: SAVCBS’04: Specification and verification of component-based systems at ACM SIGSOFT 2004/FSE-12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benevides AB, Guizzardi G (2009) A model-based tool for conceptual modeling and domain ontology engineering in ontouml. In: Filipe J, Cordeiro J (eds) ICEIS. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 24. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 528–538Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benevides AB, Guizzardi G, Braga BFB, Almeida JPA (2009) Assessing modal aspects of ontouml conceptual models in alloy. In: Heuser CA, Pernul G (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on evolving theories of conceptual modelling (ETheCoM 2009). 28th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol 5833. Springer, Gramado, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm B, Basili VR (2001) Software defect reduction top 10 list. Computer 34(1): 135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gogolla M, Büttner F, Richters M (2007) Use: a uml-based specification environment for validating uml and ocl. Sci Comput Program 69: 27–34zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guizzardi G (2005) Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson D (2006) Software abstractions: logic, language, and analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maintainers (2009) UML2Alloy. http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~bxb/UML2Alloy
  11. 11.
    Massoni T, Gheyi R, Borba P (2004) A uml class diagram analyzer. In: Third international workshop on critical systems development with UML. Affiliated with 7th UML conference, pp 143–153Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual Modeling, databases, and case: an integrated view of information systems development. In: Conceptual Modeling and Telos, chap. Wiley, Chichester, pp 49–68Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG (2009) UML 2.2 superstructure specification. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papazoglou MP, Krämer BJ (1997) A database model for object dynamics. VLDB J 6(2): 073–096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pastor O, Molina JC (2007) Model-driven architecture in practice: a software production environment based on conceptual modeling. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schinz I, Toben T, Mrugalla C, Westphal B (2004) The rhapsody uml verification environment. In: SEFM ’04: Proceedings of the software engineering and formal methods. Second international conference. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 174–183Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    USA Department of Defense (DoD) (2007) DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) management. Directive 5000.59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo F. B. Braga
    • 1
  • João Paulo Andrade Almeida
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
  • Alessander B. Benevides
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Research Group (NEMO), Computer Science DepartmentFederal University of Espírito Santo (UFES)VitoriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations