Experimentally Motivated Transformations for Intermodel Links Between Conceptual Models
Complex system development and information integration at the conceptual layer raises the requirement to be able to declare intermodel assertions between entities in models that may, or may not, be represented in the same modelling language. This is compounded by the fact that semantically equivalent notions may have been represented with a different element, such as an attribute or class. We first investigate such occurrences in six ICOM projects and 40 models with 33 schema matchings. While equivalence and subsumption are in the overwhelming majority, this extends mainly to different types of attributes, and therewith requiring non-1:1 mappings. We present a solution that bridges these semantic gaps. To facilitate implementation, the mappings and transformations are declared in ATL. This avails of a common, and logic-based, metamodel to aid verification of the links. This is currently being implemented as proof-of-concept in the ICOM tool.
KeywordsTransformation Rule Object Type Automate Reasoner Cardinality Constraint Eclipse Modeling Framework
This work is based in part upon research supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Project UID90041) and the Argentinean Ministry of Science and Technology.
- 5.Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G., Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology patterns: clarifying concepts and terminology. In: Proceedings of OSWP 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
- 6.Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M.: Conceptual model interoperability: a metamodel-driven approach. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
- 7.Fillottrani, P.R., Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: The ICOM 3.0 intelligent conceptual modelling tool and methodology. Semant. Web J. 3(3), 293–306 (2012)Google Scholar
- 8.Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M.: A design for coordinated and logics-mediated conceptual modelling. In: Proceedings of DL 2016, (in print). CEUR-WS, pp. 22–25, Cape Town, South Africa, April 2016Google Scholar
- 9.Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Tessaris, S.: Complexity of reasoning with expressive ontology mappings. In: Proceedings of FOIS 2008, FAIA, vol. 183, pp. 151–163. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
- 10.Golas, U., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F.: Formal specification of model transformations by triple graph grammars with application conditions. Elect. Comm. EASST 39, 26 (2011)Google Scholar
- 17.Mossakowski, T., Kutz, O., Codescu, M., Lange, C.: The distributed ontology, modeling and specification language. In: Proceedings of WoMo 2013. CEUR-WS, vol. 1081, Corunna, Spain, 15 September 2013Google Scholar
- 18.Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 web ontology language: direct semantics. W3C recommendation, W3C, 27 October 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/
- 19.Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 - Query/View/Transformation Specification. http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.2
- 20.Zhu, N., Grundy, J., Hosking, J.: Pounamu: a metatool for multi-view visual language environment construction. In: Proceedings of VLHCC 2004, Rome, 25–29 September 2004Google Scholar