A Metamodel-Based Approach for Extracting Ontological Semantics from UML Models

  • Hong-Seok Na
  • O-Hoon Choi
  • Jung-Eun Lim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4255)


UML has been a standard language for domain modeling and application system design for about a decade. Since UML models include domain knowledge in themselves, which was verified by domain experts, it is helpful to use these models as when we start to construct domain ontology. In this paper, we propose a method for extracting ontological concepts, properties, restrictions and instances from UML models. We compare the UML metamodel with the OWL metamodel, and define transformation rules for constructing OWL-encoded ontology. We expect that the generated ontology plays a role of an early stage model for ontology development.


Domain Ontology Ontology Development Datatype Property Ontological Semantic Application System Design 
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.
    Brokmans, S., Haase, P., Hitzler, P., Studer, R.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Rule-extended OWL DL Ontologies – A Complete Reference. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 303–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: Learning Domain Ontologies for Document Warehouses and Dedicated Web Sites. Computational Linguistics 30(2), 152–179 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amann, B., Fundulaki, I.: Integrating Ontologies and Thesauri to Build RDF Schemas. In: Abiteboul, S., Vercoustre, A.-M. (eds.) ECDL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1696, p. 234. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sabou, M., Wroe, C., Goble, C., Mishne, G.: Learning Domain Ontologies for Web Service Descriptions: an Experiment in Bioinfomatics. In: WWW 2005, Japan, pp. 190–198 (May 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechhofer, S., Harmelen, F.v., et al.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation, W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG, Usage Scenarios and Goals for Ontology Definition Metamodel, version 2.7 (2004) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colomb, R.M., Gerber, A., Lawley, M.: Issues in Mapping Metamodels in the Ontology Development Metamodel Using QVT. In: The 1st International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dean, M.: Java2OWL, (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the Semantic Web:Transformation-Based Approaches. In: Omelayenko, B., Klein, M. (eds.) Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V., Damjanovi, V.: Converting UML to OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters, USA, pp. 488–489 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG, XML Metadata Interchange Specification (May 2003),
  13. 13.
    Nay, N.F., McGuiness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880 (March 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong-Seok Na
    • 1
  • O-Hoon Choi
    • 2
  • Jung-Eun Lim
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Information and Computer ScienceKorea Digital University 
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringKorea University 

Personalised recommendations