Advertisement

Modelling domain knowledge with EDDLDP

  • Ernesto Compatangelo
  • Giovanni Rumolo
Chapter
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

This paper describes a new kind of logic-based approach to domain knowledge modelling in information systems engineering. The approach is centred around εDDL DP , a formal but user-friendly language used for an integrated description of structural and behavioural concepts at the domain level. These concepts, called information meta-concepts, represent the external outlook of the essential components of real-world application domains under a minimalist viewpoint. εDDL DP is an analyst-oriented, epistemological concept language which allows automatic reasoning about a domain knowledge base composed of information meta-concepts. The εDDL DP language is founded on an extensible framework explicitly conceived for the development of a new generation of computer-based analysis tools endowed with automatic deductive capabilities. The syntax of the language as well as some of the automatic reasoning capabilities bound to εDDL DP descriptions are shown by means of a real-world example. The main features of the εDDL DP -centred approach are compared with the corresponding features of two popular structural and behavioural modelling approaches.

Keywords

domain conceptual modelling meta-concepts concept languages automatic reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Barstow, 1993]
    Barstow, D. (1993). Should we specify Systems or Domains? In Proc. of the 1st IEEE Int. Sym. on Requirements Engineering (RE-93), page 79.Google Scholar
  2. [Borgida et al., 1985]
    Borgida, A., Greenspan, S., and Mylopoulos, J. (1985). Knowledge Representation as the basis for Requirements Specification. IEEE Computer, pages 82–91.Google Scholar
  3. [Borgida and Jarke, 1992]
    Borgida, A. and Jarke, M. (1992). Special Issue on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18 (6).Google Scholar
  4. [Borgida and Patel-Schneider, 1994]
    Borgida, A. and Patel-Schneider, P. F. (1994). A semantics and complete algorithm for subsumption in the CLASSIC description logic. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1: 277–308.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [Brachman et al., 1991]
    Brachman, R. J. et al. (1991). Living with CLASSIC: when and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. In Sowa, J. F., editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, pages 401–456. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. [Cardelli, 1984]
    Cardelli, L. (1984). A Semantics of Multiple Inheritance. In Kahn, G. et al., editors, Semantics of Data Types, volume 173 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 52–67.Google Scholar
  7. [Chen, 1976]
    Chen, P. P. (1976). The Entity-Relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1 (1): 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Coad and Yourdon, 1991]
    Coad, P. and Yourdon, E. (1991). Object Oriented Analysis. Prentice-Hall, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  9. [Compatangelo and Rumolo]
    Compatangelo, E. and Rumolo, G. Formal Domain Knowledge Modelling with Epistemological Concept Languages. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. [Greenspan et al., 1994]
    Greenspan, S., Mylopoulos, J., and Borgida, A. (1994). On Formal requirements Modelling Languages: RML Revisited. In Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE-16).Google Scholar
  11. [Grosz, 1992]
    Grosz, G. (1992). Building Information Systems Using Generic Structures. In International Computer Software and Applications Conference (ICSAC-92), Chicago (USA).Google Scholar
  12. [Hofmann, 1993]
    Hofmann, H. F. (1993). Requirements Engineering: A Survey of Methods and Tools. Technical Report 93.05, Institut für Informatik der Universität Zürich (IFI).Google Scholar
  13. [Hsia et al., 1993]
    Hsia, P., Davis, A., and Kung, D. (1993). Status Report: Requirements Engineering. IEEE Software, pages 75–79.Google Scholar
  14. [Jackson and Zave, 1993]
    Jackson, M. A. and Zave, P. (1993). Domain Descriptions. In Proc. of the 1st IEEE Int. Sym. on Requirements Engineering (RE-93), pages 56–64. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  15. [Jarke et al., 1993]
    [Jarke et al., 1993] Jarke, M. et al. (1993). Requirements Engineering: An Integrated View of Representation, Process and Domain. In 4th Eurpoean Conference on Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  16. [Kangassalo, 9293]
    Kangassalo, H. (1992/93). COMIC: A system and methodology for conceptual modelling and information construction. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 9: 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Kramer, 1993]
    Kramer, J. (1993). “Generalisations are False”? In Proc. of the 1st IEEE Int. Sym. on Requirements Engineering (RE-93), page 79. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  18. [Loucopolos et al., 1991]
    Loucopolos, P. et al. (1991). Design and Execution of Event/Action Database Applications. In 2nd Int. Conf. on Deductive Approaches to Information Systems and Databases.Google Scholar
  19. [Maiden and Tyndale, 1994]
    Maiden, N. and Tyndale, D. (1994). Reuse of Domain Abstractions during Requirements Engineering. Technical Report 94–5, ESPRIT Basic Research Project 6353, Novel Approaches to Theories Underlying Requirements Engineering (NATURE).Google Scholar
  20. [Mylopoulos et al., 1990]
    Mylopoulos, J. et al. (1990). Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8 (4): 325–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Pohl, 1994]
    Pohl, K. (1994). The Three Dimensions of Requirements Engineering: A Framework and its Applications. Information Systems, 19 (3): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Rumbaugh and Blama, 1991]
    Rumbaugh, J. and Blama, M. (1991). Object-Oriented Modelling and Design. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. [Woods and Schmolze, 1992]
    Woods, W. A. and Schmolze, J. G. (1992). The KL-ONE family. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 23 (2–9): 1–50.Google Scholar
  24. [Yourdon, 1989]
    Yourdon, E. (1989). Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernesto Compatangelo
    • 1
  • Giovanni Rumolo
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto di InformaticaUniversità di AnconaAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica1a Università di RomaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations