Ontology Reasoning for Consistency-Preserving Structural Modelling

  • Christian Wende
  • Katja Siegemund
  • Edward Thomas
  • Yuting Zhao
  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
  • Tobias Walter
  • Krzysztof Miksa
  • Pawel Sabina
  • Uwe Aßmann
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss and demonstrate concrete applications of ontology reasoning for the analysis and validation of structural models in the ODSD infrastructure. We illustrate how the ontology services (see Chaps. 3 and 5 for details) summarised in Chap. 8 are employed to enable consistency-preserving structural modelling by providing means for the specification of consistency constraints, static semantics, or the derivation of suggestions for modellers.

Keywords

Unify Modelling Language Requirement Engineering Constraint Class Concrete Syntax Consistency Rule 
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.

References

  1. 18.
    D. Batory, Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. Software Product Lines, 2005, pp. 7–20Google Scholar
  2. 55.
    C.V. Damásio, A. Analyti, G. Antoniou, G. Wagner, Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. in Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Budva, Montenegro (10–11 June 2006), Lecture Notes in Computer Science REWERSE, 2006, pp. 149–163Google Scholar
  3. 68.
    D. Firesmith, Are your requirements complete? J. Object Tech. 4(1), 27–44 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 86.
    P. Haase, G. Qi, An Analysis of Approaches to Resolving Inconsistencies in DL-based Ontologies, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics (IWOD’07), Innsbruck, Austria, 2007Google Scholar
  5. 97.
    M. Horridge, N. Drummond, J. Goodwin, A.L. Rector, R. Stevens, H. Wang, The manchester owl syntax. in OWLED, ed. by B.C. Grau, P. Hitzler, C. Shankey, E. Wallace, B.C. Grau, P. Hitzler, C. Shankey, E. Wallace. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 216. CEUR-WS.org, 2006Google Scholar
  6. 147.
    OMG. MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification, Object Management Group, 2005. http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-11-01.pdf
  7. 158.
    F.S. Parreiras, S. Staab, Using ontologies with uml class-based modeling: The twouse approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(11), 1194–1207 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 170.
    Y. Ren, Syntactic approximation in PDDSL: A completeness guarantee. Technical report, University of Aberdeen, 2010. Http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~csc280/TR/pddsl.pdf
  9. 194.
    E. Sirin, J. Tao, Towards integrity constraints in OWL, in OWL: Experiences and Directions, Sixth International Workshop (OWLED 2009), 2009Google Scholar
  10. 207.
    A. Van Lamsweerde, R. Darimont, E. Letier, Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(11), 908–926 (1998). ISSN 0098-5589Google Scholar
  11. 215.
    H. Wang, Y. Li, J. Sun, H. Zhang, J. Pan, A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification, in 1st Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE’05), 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Wende
    • 1
  • Katja Siegemund
    • 2
  • Edward Thomas
    • 3
  • Yuting Zhao
    • 3
  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 3
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
    • 4
  • Tobias Walter
    • 5
  • Krzysztof Miksa
    • 6
  • Pawel Sabina
    • 6
  • Uwe Aßmann
    • 2
  1. 1.DevBoost GmbHBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Technical University DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.University of Aberdeen, King–s CollegeAberdeenUK
  4. 4.FUMEC UniversityMinas GeraisBrazil
  5. 5.University of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  6. 6.COMARCH S.A.KrakόwPoland

Personalised recommendations