An Ontology Definition Framework for Model Driven Development

  • Yucong Duan
  • Xiaolan Fu
  • Qingwu Hu
  • Yuqing Gu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3983)


Ontologies are increasingly adopted to facilitate the model driven software development (MDSD). The issue of intertransformations among various ontologies is quickly growing prominent. Some explain that variation of ontology definition should be accepted as a must. We would agree with the point that the definition of ontology for the MDSD should be further standardized with tools. In this paper, the ontology definition for the MDSD is systematically analyzed from the philosophical and human cognitional views. Based on a few metaconcepts, ontology creation and evaluation modes are proposed. By providing general precise and consistent semantics for development elements, this framework will considerably improve the development of models of automation oriented development MDSD processes. Experimental applications on intertransformations and unifications of semantics of existing modeling languages are very encouraging.


Model Transformation Ontology Concept Existence Meaning Consistent Semantic Creation Mode 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wagner, G.: The Agent-Object-Relationship metamodel: towards a unified view of state and behavior. Inf. Syst. 28(5), 475–504 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: UML - the Good, the Bad or the Ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software and System Modeling 4(1), 4–13 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Understanding process and the quest for deeper questions in software engineering research. ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE, 6–14 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egyed, A.: Heterogeneous Views Integration and its Automation, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Southern California (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott, K.: UML Explained. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001) ISBN: 0 201 72182Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1918),
  7. 7.
    Noy, N.: Alan RectorDefining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web: Use With Individuals.W3C Working Draft (July 21, 2004), This version,
  8. 8.
    Boehm, B.W., Port, D.: Conceptual Modeling Challenges for Model-Based Architecting and Software Engineering (MBASE). Conceptual Modeling, 24–43 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duan, Y., Fu, X., Cheung, S.C., Gu, Y.: An Entity-Relationship Model Based Conceptual Framework for Model Driven Development. In: Proc. of IASTED Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (SE 2006), Innsbruck, Austria, February 14-16, pp. 200–205 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, P.P.: The Entity-Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tekinerdogan, B.: Synthesis Based Software Architecture Design, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands (March 2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeffery, R.: Achieving Software Development Performance Improvement Through Process Change. In: Invited talk in Software Process Workshop 2005, Beijing, China, May 26 (2005),
  13. 13.
    DSTC, Gentleware, IBM, Sandpiper Software.Ontology Definition MetaModel (August 23, 2004),
  14. 14.
    Dahchour, M., Pirotte, A.: The semantics of reifying relationships as classes. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2002, Ciudad Real, Spain, April 2002, pp. 580–586 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright ©, by Houghton Mifflin Company (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duan, Y., Cheung, S.C., Fu, X., Gu, Y.: A Metamodel Based Model Transformation Approach. In: Proc. of SERA 2005, MI, USA, August 11-12, pp. 184–191 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 (March 2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating Ontological Decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45(2), 61–65Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, L.: Ontological modeling for software application development. Advances in Engineering Software 36(3), 147–157 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gruninger, M., Fox, M.S.: Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI 1995, Montreal (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuinness, D.L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies. In: Cohn, A.G., Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (KR 2000). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosch, E.: Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Hillside (1978)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2) (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quine, W.V.O.: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia University Press, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Identity, unity, and individuality: Towards a formal toolkit for ontological analysis. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2000: The European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sure, Y., Gómez-Pérez, A., Daelemans, W., Reinberger, M.-L., Guarino, N., Noy, N.F.: Why Evaluate Ontology Technologies? Because It Works! IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(4), 74–81 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hilliard, R.: Aspects, Concerns, Subjects, Views. In: First Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in Object-oriented Systems, at OOPSLA 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knublauch, H.: Ontology-Driven Software Development in the Context of the Semantic Web: An Example Scenario with Protégé/OWL. In: International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web, Monterey, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duan, Y., Gu, Y., Fu, X.: A Conceptual Approach to Modeling Model Driven Development Processes. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Systems (ICONS 2006), Mauritius, April 27-29. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006) (in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, R., Harikumar, A., Chiang, C.-C., Yang, H.S., Kim, H.-K., Kang, B.: A Framework for Dynamically Converting Components to Web Services. In: SERA 2005, pp. 431–437 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yucong Duan
    • 1
  • Xiaolan Fu
    • 2
  • Qingwu Hu
    • 3
  • Yuqing Gu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.China Development Center for NEC Telecom SystemChina

Personalised recommendations