Imposing Modeling Rules on Industrial Applications through Meta-modeling

  • Peter Fröhlich
  • Zaijun Hu
  • Manfred Schoelzke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2465)

Abstract

There is a trend in the automation domain to create common conceptual models of an industrial plant, which serve different applications, like online displays, simulators, control systems, diagnostic tools and others. To master the complexity of such common models, modeling rules have to be enforced. Current solutions to this problem either rely on an informal definition of semantics or the semantics of one dedicated tool or language. In the current paper, we introduce a meta-modeling approach to provide and enforce such modeling rules. Our approach concisely defines consistency of conceptual models with respect to a meta model. We show how the approach is mapped to widely accepted general-purpose IT standards (like UML and XML) and tools.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rafael Batres. Modelica as a model representation language of behavior models in MDF. Technical Report TR-JSPS-2000-06-22, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, June 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bayer, R. Schneider, and W. Marquardt. Integration of data models for process design-firststeps and experiences. In 7th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering, Keystone, Colorado, July 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul V. Biron and Ashok Malhotra. Xml schema part 2: Datatypes. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, May 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruth Breu, Radu Grosu, Franz Huber, Bernhard Rumpe, and Wolfgang Schwerin. Towards a precise semantics for object-oriented modeling techniques. In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings ECOOP’97 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques. TUM-I9725, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dan Brickley and R.V. Guha. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0-W3C Candidate Recommendation. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, March 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rational Software Corporation et al. Uml semantics, version 1.1. Technical report, OMG, September 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andy S. Evans. Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques, WIFT’98, Boca Raton/FL, USA. IEEE CS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin Fowler. Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peter Fröhlich, Nicola Henze, and Wolfgang Nejdl. Meta-modeling for hypermedia design. In Proc. of Second IEEE Metadata Conference, Maryland, September 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peter Fröhlich and Wolfgang Nejdl. Webrc: Configuration management for a cooperation tool. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Software Configuration Management (SCM’7) (Springer LNCS1235), Boston, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. Design Patterns. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    David Harel and Bernhard Rumpe. Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuffpart I: The basic stuff. Technical ReportMCS00-16, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, September 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Jarke, R. Gallersdörfer, M. Jeusfeld, M. Staudt, and S. Eherer. Conceptbase-a deductive object base for meta data management. Journal on Intelligent Information Systems, 4(2):167–192, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Kent, A. Evans, and B. Rumpe. Uml semantics faq. In A. Moreira and S. Demeyer, editors, Object-Oriented Technology, ECOOP’99 Workshop Reade. LNCS 1743, Springer Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ora Lassila and Ralph R. Swick. Ressource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, February 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. L. Lu, R. Batres, H. S. Li, and Y. Naka. A G2-Based MDOOM Testbed for Concurrent Process Engineering. Comput. Chem. Engng., 21, 1997. Supplement pp. S11–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: A language for representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(4), 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification Version 1.3 RTF. Technical report, Object Management Group Inc., September 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG. OMG UnifiedModeling Language Specification Version 1.3. Technical report, Object Management Group Inc., March 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernd-Uwe Pagel and Mario Winter. Towards Pattern-Based Tools. In Proceedings Euro-PLoP’96, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mark Richters and Martin Gogolla. On Formalizing the UML Object Constraint Language OCL. In Tok-Wang Ling, Sudha Ram, and Mong Li Lee, editors, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER’98), pages 449–464. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 1507, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.N. Robinson and S. Volkov. A Meta-Model for Restructuring Stakeholder Requirements. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’97), Boston, USA, May 1997. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henry S. Thompson, David Beech, Murray Maloney, and Noah Mendelsohn. Xml schema part 1: Structures. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, May 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Fröhlich
    • 1
  • Zaijun Hu
    • 1
  • Manfred Schoelzke
    • 1
  1. 1.ABB ForschungszentrumLadenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations