Model Driven Engineering with Ontology Technologies

  • Steffen Staab
  • Tobias Walter
  • Gerd Gröner
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6325)


Ontologies constitute formal models of some aspect of the world that may be used for drawing interesting logical conclusions even for large models. Software models capture relevant characteristics of a software artifact to be developed, yet, most often these software models have limited formal semantics, or the underlying (often graphical) software language varies from case to case in a way that makes it hard if not impossible to fix its semantics. In this contribution, we survey the use of ontology technologies for software modeling in order to carry over advantages from ontology technologies to the software modeling domain. It will turn out that ontology-based metamodels constitute a core means for exploiting expressive ontology reasoning in the software modeling domain while remaining flexible enough to accommodate varying needs of software modelers.


  1. 1.
    Mellor, S., Clark, A., Futagami, T.: Model-driven development. IEEE software 20(5), 14–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kuhne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE software 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (October 2009),
  4. 4.
    Ebert, J.: Metamodels Taken Seriously: The TGraph Approach. In: Kontogiannis, K., Tjortjis, C., Winter, A. (eds.) 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, Piscataway, NJ. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bildhauer, D., Riediger, V., Schwarz, H., Strauss, S.: grUML-An UMLbased Modeling Language for TGraphs. To appear in Arbeitsberichte Informatik, Universität Koblenz-Landau (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification (January 2006),
  7. 7.
    OMG: UML Infrastructure Specification, v2.1.2. OMG Adopted Specification (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budinsky, F., Brodsky, S., Merks, E.: Eclipse modeling framework. Pearson Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jouault, F., Bezivin, J.: KM3: a DSL for Metamodel Specification. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG: MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification. Object Modeling Group (June 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E.: Model transformation language MOLA. Model Driven Architecture, 62–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner, R.: Developing Model Transformations with Fujaba. In: Proc. of the 4th International Fujaba Days, pp. 206–275 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wende, C.: Ontology Services for Model-Driven Software Development. MOST Project Deliverable (November 2009),
  15. 15.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (October 2009),
  16. 16.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Pellet: An OWL DL Reasoner. In: Proc. of the 2004 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2004). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 104 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF (working draft). Technical report, W3C (March 2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schneider, M.: SPARQLAS: Writing SPARQL Queries in OWL Syntax. Bachelor thesis, University of Koblenz-Landau, German (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glimm, B., Parsia, B.: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. Working draft, W3C (January 26, 2010),
  20. 20.
    Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R., Noy, N., Musen, M.: The Protégé OWL plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. LNCS, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J.: Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(4), 268–293 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Horridge, M., Sirin, E.: Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 267–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horridge, M., Drummond, N., Goodwin, J., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Wang, H.: The Manchester OWL Syntax. In: OWLED 2006 Second Workshop on OWL Experiences and Directions, Athens, GA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and Repair of OWL Ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B.: Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies. The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 170–184Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walter, T., Ebert, J.: Combining DSLs and Ontologies using Metamodel Integration. In: Taha, W.M. (ed.) DSL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5658, pp. 148–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parreiras, F.S., Walter, T.: Report on the combined metamodel. Deliverable ICT216691/UoKL/WP1-D1.1/D/PU/a1, University of Koblenz-Landau, MOST Project (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iqbal, A., Ureche, O., Hausenblas, M., Tummarello, G.: Ld2sd: Linked data driven software development. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2009), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 1-3, pp. 240–245. Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    OMG: Ontology Definition Metamodel. Object Modeling Group (September 2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Connor, M.J., Shankar, R., Tu, S.W., Nyulas, C., Parrish, D., Musen, M.A., Das, A.K.: Using semantic web technologies for knowledge-driven querying of biomedical data. In: Bellazzi, R., Abu-Hanna, A., Hunter, J. (eds.) AIME 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4594, pp. 267–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Staab, S., Scherp, A., Arndt, R., Troncy, R., Gregorzek, M., Saathoff, C., Schenk, S., Hardman, L.: Semantic multimedia. In: Baroglio, C., Bonatti, P.A., Małuszyński, J., Marchiori, M., Polleres, A., Schaffert, S. (eds.) RW 2008. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 125–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Staab, S., Franz, T., Görlitz, O., Saathoff, C., Schenk, S., Sizov, S.: Lifecycle Knowledge Management: Getting the Semantics Across in X-Media. In: Esposito, F., Raś, Z.W., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G. (eds.) ISMIS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4203, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S.: Using ontologies with uml class-based modeling: The twouse approach. Data Knowl. Eng. (to be published)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walter, T., Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: An Ontology-Based Framework for Domain-Specific Languages. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walter, T., Silva Parreiras, F., 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)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Schenk, S., Winter, A.: Model driven specification of ontology translations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 484–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walter, T., Ebert, J.: Combining ontology-enriched domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings of the of the Second Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering (TWOMDE) at MoDELS (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Miksa, K., Kasztelnik, M., Sabina, P., Walter, T.: Towards semantic modelling of network physical devices. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 329–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Groener, G., Staab, S.: Modeling and Query Pattern for Process Retrieval in OWL. In: Bernstein, A., Karger, D.R., Heath, T., Feigenbaum, L., Maynard, D., Motta, E., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 243–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ren, Y., Groener, G., Lemcke, J., Rahmani, T., Friesen, A., Zhao, Y., Pan, J.Z., Staab, S.: Validating Process Refinement with Ontologies. In: International Workshop on Description Logics (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gangemi, A., Borgo, S., Catenacci, C., Lehmenn, J.: Task Taxonomies for Knowledge Content D07. In: Metokis Project public Deliverable, pp. 20–42 (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grimm, S., Motik, B., Preist, C.: Variance in e-Business Service Discovery. In: Proc. of the ISWC Workshop on Semantic Web Services (2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Budinsky, F., Brodsky, S.A., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V.: Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: A challenging model transformation. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 436–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: logic, language, and analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang, H., Dong, J., Sun, J., Sun, J.: Reasoning support for Semantic Web ontology family languages using Alloy. Multiagent and Grid Systems 2(4), 455–471 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sure, Y., Angele, J., Staab, S.: OntoEdit: Guiding ontology development by methodology and inferencing. LNCS, pp. 1205–1222. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gerber, A., Lawley, M., Raymond, K., Steel, J., Wood, A.: Using Sophisticated Models in Resolution Theorem Proving. LNCS, pp. 90–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Martin, D.: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services (2004),
  54. 54.
    Grüninger, M., Menzel, C.: The Process Specification Language (PSL) Theory and Application. AI Magazine 24, 63–74 (2003)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Grüninger, M.: 29. In: Ontology of the Process Specification Language, pp. 575–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Ontology Based Business Process Description. In: EMOI-INTEROP (2005)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Goderis, A., Sattler, U., Goble, C.: Applying DLs to workflow reuse and repurposing. In: Description Logic Workshop (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  • Tobias Walter
    • 1
  • Gerd Gröner
    • 1
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Web Science and TechnologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations