Support for Domain Constraints in the Validation of Ontologically Well-Founded Conceptual Models

  • John Guerson
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 175)


In order to increase the accuracy of conceptual models, graphical languages such as UML are often enriched with textual constraint languages such as the Object Constraint Language (OCL). This enables modelers to benefit from the simplicity of diagrammatic languages while retaining the expressiveness required for producing accurate models. In this paper, we discuss how OCL is used to enrich a conceptual model assessment tool based on an ontologically well-founded profile of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) that assumes multiple and dynamic classification (called OntoUML). In the approach, OCL expressions are transformed into Alloy statements enabling model validation and assertion verification with the Alloy Analyzer. The tool we have developed allows modelers with no Alloy expertise to express constraints in OCL enriching OntoUML models.


Conceptual Model Validation Domain Constraints OCL Alloy OntoUML 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On challenges of model transformation from UML to Alloy. Softw. Syst. Model 9(1), 69–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benevides, A.B., Guizzardi, G., Braga, B.F.B., Almeida, J.P.A.: Validating modal aspects of OntoUML conceptual models using automatically generated visual world structures. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 16, 2904–2933 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braga, B.F.B., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Benevides, A.B.: Transforming OntoUML into Alloy: towards conceptual model validation using a lightweight formal method. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1-2), 55–63 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: OHOLCL: A formal proof environment for UML/OCL. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 97–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabot, J., Gogolla, M.: Object Constraint Language (OCL): A Definitive Guide. In: Bernardo, M., Cortellessa, V., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) SFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7320, pp. 58–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunha, A., Garis, A., Riesco, D.: Translating between Alloy specifications and UML class diagrams annotated with OCL. Softw. Syst. Model (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Gogolla, M., Bohling, J., Richters, M.: Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(4), 386–398 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarino, N.: Toward Formal Evaluation of Ontology Quality. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 78–79 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Telematica Instituut, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions-Logic, Language, and Analysis, Revised Edition. The MIT Press (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M.: From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 415–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: CD2Alloy: Class Diagrams Analysis Using Alloy Revisited. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 592–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Massoni, T., Gheyi, R., Borba, P.: Formal Refactoring for UML Class Diagrams. In: 19th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES), pp. 152–167 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual Modeling and Telos. In: Conceptual Modeling, Databases, and CASE: An Integrated View of Information Systems Development. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NEMO OntoUML Infrastructure,
  18. 18.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language, version 2.3.1 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Guerson
    • 1
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Research Group (NEMO)Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES)VitóriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations