Advertisement

Combining Ontologies with Domain Specific Languages: A Case Study from Network Configuration Software

  • Krzysztof Miksa
  • Pawel Sabina
  • Marek Kasztelnik
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6325)

Abstract

One of the important aspects of Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) is to consider application-domain variability, which leads to creation of Domain Specific Languages (DSL). As with DSLs models are concise, easy to understand and maintain, this approach greatly increases the productivity and software quality. Usually, the DSLs in MDE are described with a metamodel and a concrete syntax definition. The models expressed in the DSL are linguistic instantiations of the language concepts found in the metamodel.

However, for some of the application domains it’s not enough to consider the linguistic dimension of the instantiation. The problem arises when the domain itself contains the aspect of typing. This leads to another view on instantiation, called ontological instantiation . Since both aspects are present simultaneously, we refer to the combined approach with the term “two-dimensional metamodelling”.

In the following, we will exemplify the problem with a case study based on a real challenge found in the domain of network management. The solution we propose benefits from ontology technology which is applied to enforce the semantics of ontological instantiation. Our approach presents significant differences comparing to the existing 2D metamodelling solution, although the motivations are similar. Thus, we consider our work as a case study of applying ontology enabled software engineering in the area of DSL engineering, rather than a new metamodelling technology or an application of existing 2D metamodelling architecture.

The article is a result of joint work of the MOST project partners, applied within the case study provided by Comarch.

Keywords

Physical Device Concrete Syntax Eclipse Modelling Framework Ontology Technology Close World Assumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    PlanetMDE: A Web Portal for The Model Driven Engineering Community (2010), http://planetmde.org
  2. 2.
    Wende, C., Bartho Andreas Ebert, J., Jekjantuk, N., Gerd, G., Lemke, J., Miska, K., Rahmani, T., Sabina, P., Schwarz, H., Walter, T., Zhao, Y., Zivkovic, S.: D2.5 - ontology services for model-driven software development. MOST Project Deliverable (November 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forum, D.: DSM Forum web page (2010), http://www.dsmforum.org/
  4. 4.
    Fleck, J.: Overview of the Structure of the NGOSS Architecture (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: A metamodeling foundation. IEEE Software (September/October 2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kennel, B.: A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 99(RapidPosts), 742–755 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    EMF: Eclipse Modelling Framework Web Page (2010) http://www.eclipse.org/emf
  8. 8.
    EMFText: EMFText Web Page (2010) http://www.emftext.org
  9. 9.
    Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S., Winter, A.: On marrying ontological and metamodeling technical spaces. In: ESEC-FSE ’07: Proceedings of the the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 439–448. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Winter, A.: TwoUse: Integrating UML Models and OWL Ontologies. Technical Report 16/2007, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fachbereich Informatik (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horridge, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax. Technical report (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/
  12. 12.
    OMG: MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification (2005), http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-11-01.pdf
  13. 13.
    Damásio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: Supporting Open and Closed World Reasoning on the Web. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuan, R., Pan, J.Z., Zhao, Y.: Soundness preserving approximation for tbox reasoning (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haase, P., Qi, G.: An analysis of approaches to resolving inconsistencies in dl-based ontologies (2007), http://kmi.open.ac.uk/events/iwod/papers/paper-13.pdf
  16. 16.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Schreiber, G.: OWL FA: A Metamodeling Extension of OWL DL. In: Proc. of the First International OWL Experience and Directions Workshop, OWLED 2005 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Miksa
    • 1
  • Pawel Sabina
    • 1
  • Marek Kasztelnik
    • 1
  1. 1.Comarch SAKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations