Semi-automated Generation of DSL Meta Models from Formal Domain Ontologies

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9344)

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of alignment of domain ontologies and meta-models of Domain Specific Languages (DSL) in order to facilitate the DSL development process by formal methods. The solution presented in this paper automatically generates design templates of a DSL meta-model that are consistent with a given domain ontology represented in OWL DL. Consistency of alignment is ensured by predefined mapping rules between constructs of ontology modelling language OWL DL and a modelling language used for representing DSL meta-models. The approach is implemented as an extension to the CoCoViLa system and the CoCoViLa modelling language is used for representing DSL meta-models. The evaluation of the provided method is carried out by developing the DSL for the IT risk analysis and management domain.

Keywords

Model-driven software engineering Ontology-based modelling Model transformations DSL meta-models 

References

  1. 1.
    Aßmann, U., Zschaler, S.: Ontologies, meta-models, and the model-driven paradigm. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 249–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuiness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buldas, A., Laud, P., Priisalu, J., Saarepera, M., Willemson, J.: Rational choice of security measures via multi-parameter attack trees. In: López, J. (ed.) CRITIS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4347, pp. 235–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Čeh, I., Črepinšek, M., Kosar, T., Mernik, M.: Ontology driven development of domain-specific languages. ComSIS 8(2), 317–342 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fonseca, J.M.S., Pereira, M.J.V., Henriques, P.R.: Converting ontologies into DSLs. In: Pereira, M.J.V., Leal, J.P., Simões, A. (eds.) 3rd Symposium on Languages, Applications and Technologies (SLATE’14), pp. 85–92. Dagstuhl Publishing, Germany (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gronback, R.: Eclipse Modeling Project: a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontology-based evaluation and design of visual conceptual modelling languages. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Bettin, J., Cohe, S. (eds.) Domain Engineering. Product Lines, Languages, and Conceptual Models, pp. 317–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haav, H.-M.: A practical methodology for development of a network of e-government domain ontologies. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Nemuraite, L., Suomi, R. (eds.) Building the e-World Ecosystem. IFIP AICT, vol. 353, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katasanov, A.: Ontology-driven software engineering: beyond model checking and transformations. Int. J. Semant. Comput. 06, 205–242 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotkas, V., Ojamaa, A., Grigorenko, P., Maigre, R., Harf, M., Tyugu, E.: CoCoViLa as a multifunctional simulation platform. In: Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUTools 2011), pp. 198–205. ICST, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 37(4), 316–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mints, G., Tyugu, E.: Justification of the structural synthesis of programs. Sci. Comput. Program. 2(3), 215–240 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mints, G., Tyugu, E.: Propositional logic programming and the PRIZ system. J. Log. Program. 9(2&3), 179–193 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax
  15. 15.
    OMG. MDA Guide 1.0.1. http://www.omg.org/mda June 2003
  16. 16.
    Roser, S., Bauer, B.: Automatic generation and evolution of model transformations using ontology engineering space. In: Spaccapietra, S., Pan, J.Z., Thiran, P., Halpin, T., Staab, S., Svatek, V., Shvaiko, P., Roddick, J. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics XI. LNCS, vol. 5383, pp. 32–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tairas, R., Mernik, M., Gray, J.: Using ontologies in the domain analysis of domain-specific languages. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 332–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanden Bossche, M., Ross, P., MacLarty, I., Van Nuffelen, B., Pelov, N.: Ontology driven software engineering for real life applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering, Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 13, 83–108 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S., Ebert, J.: Joint language and domain engineering. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cybernetics, Laboratory of Software ScienceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations