On the Formalization of the Common Information Model Metaschema

  • Jorge E. López de Vergara
  • Víctor A. Villagrá
  • Julio Berrocal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3775)


Integrated network management frameworks include a common definition of the managed resources, known as an information model, which is a key factor to describe the domain to be managed. In this scope, it is important to understand the semantics each information model provides to allow interoperation among different integrated management architectures. For this, ontology languages have recently been proposed, because thanks to their formalization they can deal with the semantics of information. Nevertheless, they need to be adapted to meet the management requirements. An alternative to the use of ontology languages can be the formalization of the management information languages to cope with the semantics of the information models. This paper provides a way to formalize one of these management languages: the Common Information Model metaschema. The formalization is based on the use of the Object Constraint Language to define in a formal way the set of natural language rules that describe this metaschema, improving its semantics, comparing also this solution to those based on ontologies.


  1. 1.
    Studer, R., Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D.: Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering 25, 161–197 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    López de Vergara, J.E., Villagrá, V.A., Asensio, J.I., Berrocal, J.: Ontologies: Giving Semantics to Network Management Models. IEEE Network 17(3), 15–21 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavinal, E., Desprats, T., Raynaud, Y.: A Conceptual Framework for Building CIM-Based Ontologies. In: Proc. of the Eighth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2003), Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    López de Vergara, J.E., Villagrá, V.A., Berrocal, J.: Applying the Web Ontology Language to management information definitions. IEEE Communications Magazine 42(7), 68–74 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lanfranchi, G., Della Peruta, P., Perrone, A., Calvanese, D.: Towards a new landscape of systems management in an autonomic computing environment. IBM Systems Journal 42(1), 119–128 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quirolgico, S., Assis, P., Westerinen, A., Baskey, M., Stokes, E.: Toward a Formal Common Information Model Ontology. In: Bussler, C.J., Hong, S.-k., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Kinshuk, Krishnaswamy, S., Loke, S.W., Oberle, D., Richards, D., Sharma, A., Sure, Y., Thalheim, B. (eds.) WISE 2004 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3307, pp. 11–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bapat, S.: Towards Richer Relationship Modeling Semantics. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 11(9), 1373–1384 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, T.: PanosGavriil Tsigaridas: A Knowledge-based Model for Network Service Management. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Symposium Global Data Networking (December 1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Distributed Management Task Force, Inc.: Common Information Model Specification, Version 2.2. DMTF Standard DSP0004 (June 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    López de Vergara, J.E., Villagrá, V.A., Berrocal, J., Asensio, J.I., Pignaton, R.: Semantic Management: Application of Ontologies for the Integration of Management Information Models. In: Proc. of the Eighth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2003), Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A. (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: UML as an Ontology Modelling Language. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), Stockholm, Sweden (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kogut, P., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., Smith, J.: UML for Ontology Development. Knowledge Engineering Review Journal, Special Issue on Ontologies in Agent Systems 17(1), 61–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language Specification. OMG document formal/03-03-13 (March 2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (May 21, 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 1.5. OMG document formal/03-03-01 (March 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Distributed Management Task Force, Inc.: Common Information Model (CIM) Infrastructure Specification, Version 2.3 Preliminary. DMTF Standard DSP0004 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sibilla, M., Barros de Sales, A., Broisin, J., Vidal, P., Jocteur-Monrozier, F.: Behaviour modelling: a contribution to CIM. DMTF Academic Alliance Paper (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge E. López de Vergara
    • 1
  • Víctor A. Villagrá
    • 2
  • Julio Berrocal
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, Escuela Politécnica SuperiorMadridSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas TelemáticosUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, ETSI de TelecomunicaciónMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations