Advertisement

Fundamental Conceptual Modeling Languages in OMiLAB

  • Dimitris Karagiannis
  • Robert Andrei Buchmann
  • Patrik Burzynski
  • Ulrich Reimer
  • Michael Walch

Abstract

Regardless of the application domain, both the analysis of existing systems and the creation of new systems benefit extensively from having the system modeled from a conceptual point of view in order to capture its behavioral, structural or semantic characteristics, while abstracting away irrelevant details. Depending on which relevant details are assimilated in the modeling language, modeling tools may support different degrees of domain-specificity. The boundaries of what domain-specific means are as ambiguous as the definition of a domain—it may be a business sector, a paradigm, or a narrow application area. However, some patterns and invariants are recurring across domains and this has led to the emergence of commonly used modeling languages that incorporate such fundamental concepts. This chapter focuses on the metamodeling approach for the hybridization of BPMN, ER, EPC, UML and Petri Nets within a single modeling method identified as FCML, with a proof of concept named Bee-Up implemented in OMiLAB.

Keywords

Hybrid metamodeling BPMN ER EPC UML Petri Nets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Srdjan Zivkovic and all the participants of the NEMO Summer School Series for the discussion of FCML.

Tool Download http://www.omilab.org/bee-up.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG: The BPMN specification page. http://www.bpmn.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  2. 2.
    Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS, p. 20. Springer, Heidelberg, Vom Geschäftsprozess zum Anwendungssystem (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Software AG: ARIS—the community page. http://www.ariscommunity.com (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  5. 5.
    OMG: The UML resource page. http://www.uml.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  6. 6.
    Petri, C.A., Reisig, W.: Petri net. Scholarpedia 3(4), 6477 (2008). doi: 10.4249/scholarpedia.6477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reisig, W.: Understanding Petri Nets. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMiLAB: The metamodelling page for FCML and the Bee-Up tool. http://www.OMiLAB.org/bee-up (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  9. 9.
    BOC GmbH: ADOxx—official website. https://www.adoxx.org/live/home (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  10. 10.
    Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Agile modelling method engineering: lessons learned in the ComVantage project. In: Ralyte, J., Espana, S., Pastor, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th IFIP WG 8.1 Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modelling (PoEM 2015), Valencia, Spain. LNBIP, vol. 235, pp. 356–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2015a)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karagiannis, D.: Agile modeling method engineering. In: Proceedings the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2015), pp. 5−10, Athens, Greece. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jorgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moody, D.: The physics of notations: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(5), 756–777 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bencomo, N., France, R., Cheng, B.H.C., Aßmann, U.: Models@run.time. LNCS, vol. 8378. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process-aware informations systems: lessons to be learned from process mining. In: Jensen, L., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 1−26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput. 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Box, G.E.P.: Science and Statistics. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 71, 791–799 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis: Foundations and Applications. LNAI vol. 3626, Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Staab, S., Studer, R.: Handbook on Ontologies. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W3C: OWL 2—the W3C recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview. Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  21. 21.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, DL., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Handbook of Description Logics. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staab, S., Walter, T., Gröner, G., Parreiras, F.S.: Model driven engineering with ontology technologies. In: Aßmann, U., Bartho, A., Wende, C. (eds.) Reasoning Web—Semantic Technologies for Software Engineering, LNCS 6325, pp. 62–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling: toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 319–337 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Voultsidis, M.: ER2SQL—the official page. http://www.er2sql.com (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  25. 25.
    Andersson, M.: Extracting an entity-relationship schema from a relational database through reverse engineering. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship approach, Manchester, England. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 403−419. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Della, P.G., Di Marco, A., Intriglia, B., Melatti, I., Pierantonio, A.: Xere: towards a natural interoperability between XML and ER diagrams. In: Pezze, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference FASE 2003 part of the Joint European Conference on Theory and Practice of Software, Warsaw, Poland. LNCS, vol. 2621, pp 356–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, C., Li, J.: Designing quality XML Schemas from ER diagrams. In: Yu, J.X., Kitsuregawa, M., Leong, H.V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Web-Age Information Management, Hong Kong, China. LNCS 4016, pp 508–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Embley, D.W., Ling, T.W.: Synergistic database design with an extended Entity-Relationship model. In: Lochovsky, F.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Entity-Relationship approach to database design and querying, pp. 111–128. Elsevier, Toronto, Canada (1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teorey, T.J., Yang, D., Fry, J.P.: A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(2), 197–222 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conceptual Modeling conference series. The ER conference series website http://www.conceptualmodeling.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  31. 31.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language user guidelines, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    OMG: The XMI specification page. http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  33. 33.
    OMG: The OCL resource page. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL. Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  34. 34.
    Carlson, D.: Modeling XML Applications with UML. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    OMG: The SysML resource page. http://www.omgsysml.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  36. 36.
    Vanderperren, Y., Mueller, W., He, D., Mischkalla, F., Dehaene, W.: Extending UML for electronic systems design: a code generation perspective. In: Nicolescu, G., O’Connor, I., Piguet, C. (eds.) Design Technology for Heterogeneous Embedded Systems, pp. 13–39. Springer, Netherlands (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ACM/IEEE: Official page of the 18th edition of the MODELS International Conference. http://cruise.eecs.uottawa.ca/models2015 (2015). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  38. 38.
    OASIS: BPEL—the official website. https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    WfMC XPDL specification—official website (2015). http://www.xpdl.org. Accessed 1 Oct 2015
  40. 40.
    White, S.A.: Using BPMN to model a BPEL process. BPTrends 3, 1–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.). Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium. The 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 521–532. Namur Univ. Press (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process management notation. In: Bellahsene, Z., Leonard, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Montpellier, France. LNCS vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heildelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    OMG: The DMN specification page. http://www.omg.org/spec/DMN (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  44. 44.
    Velitchkov, I.: BPMN versus EPC revisited part 1. http://www.ariscommunity.com/users/ivo/2011-04-11-bpmn-vs-epc-revisited-part-1 (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  45. 45.
    Burlton, R.: Perspectives on Process Modeling. BPTrends (2009). http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/07-09-COL-POV-Perspectives%20on%20Process%20Modeling-Burlton-cap%20_1_%20RB%20Final.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Swenson, K.: BPMN 2.0: no longer for business professionals. https://social-biz.org/2010/09/01/bpmn-2-0-no-longer-for-business-professionals/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  47. 47.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Meertens, L.O., Iacob, M.E., Eckartz, S.M.: Feasibility of EPC to BPEL model transformations based on ontology and patterns. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the BPM 2009 workshops, Ulm, Germany. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 347−358. Springer, Heildelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC markup language: an XML-based interchange format for event-driven process chains. IseB 4(3), 245–265 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics of control-flow in UML 2.0 activities. In: Bottoni, P., Hundhausen, C., Levialdi, S., Tortora, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pp. 235–242. IEEE, Rome, Italy (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M.: Coloured Petri nets. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Int Colloquium ICALP98, Aalborg, Denmark. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Eclipse: The Eclipse Modelling Framework official page. https://eclipse.org/modeling/emf/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  54. 54.
    Jeusfeld, M.: Metamodeling and method engineering with ConceptBase. In: Jeusfeld, M., Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Metamodeling for Method Engineering, pp. 89–168. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit + a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Bubenko, J., Krogstie, J., Pastor, O., Pernici, B., Rolland, C., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, pp. 109–129. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    MetaCase: MetaEdit + tool. http://www.metacase.com/products.html (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  57. 57.
    W3C: The RDF official resource page. http://www.w3.org/RDF/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  58. 58.
    W3C: The RIF specification page. https://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  59. 59.
    Visic, N., Fill, H.-G., Buchmann, R., Karagiannis, D.: A domain-specific language for modelling method definition: from requirements to grammar. In: Rolland, C., Anagnostopoulos, D., Loucopoulos, P., Gonzalez-Perez, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2015), pp. 286–297. IEEE, Athens, Greece (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    OMG: The MOF specification page. http://www.omg.org/mof/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  61. 61.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison Wesley, The Eclipse Series (2004)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kern, H., Hummel, A., Kuhne, S.: Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In: The 11th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, Portland, USA (2011). http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM11/Papers/kern.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015
  64. 64.
    Zivkovic, S.: Metamodel composition in hybrid modelling—a modular approach. Doctoral thesis, University of Vienna (2016)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Min Tjoa, A., Quirchmayer, G (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference EC-Web 2002—DEXA 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France. LNCS vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A.: Model fragment comparison using natural language processing techniques. In: Hess, T. (ed.) Brenner W, pp. 249–269. Wirtschafts-informatik in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modeling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff, Part 1: The Basic Stuff (2000)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic meta modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: ≪UML≫ 2000—The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 323−337. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: an ontology-based framework for domain-specific languages. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Inernational. Conference on MODELS, Denver, USA. LNCS vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Modelling mobile app requirements for semantic traceability. J. Requirements Eng. (2015). doi: 10.1007/s00766-015-0235-1 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, A.: Linked open models: extending linked open data with conceptual model information. Inf. Syst. 56, 174–197 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Architect. 8(1), 4–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Karagiannis
    • 1
  • Robert Andrei Buchmann
    • 2
  • Patrik Burzynski
    • 1
  • Ulrich Reimer
    • 3
  • Michael Walch
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Knowledge EngineeringUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Business Information Systems DepartmentBabes-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania
  3. 3.Institute for Information and Process ManagementUniversity of Applied Sciences St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations