Skip to main content
Book cover

Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling pp 3–30Cite as

Fundamental Conceptual Modeling Languages in OMiLAB

Abstract

Regardless of the application domain, both the analysis of existing systems and the creation of new systems benefit extensively from having the system modeled from a conceptual point of view in order to capture its behavioral, structural or semantic characteristics, while abstracting away irrelevant details. Depending on which relevant details are assimilated in the modeling language, modeling tools may support different degrees of domain-specificity. The boundaries of what domain-specific means are as ambiguous as the definition of a domain—it may be a business sector, a paradigm, or a narrow application area. However, some patterns and invariants are recurring across domains and this has led to the emergence of commonly used modeling languages that incorporate such fundamental concepts. This chapter focuses on the metamodeling approach for the hybridization of BPMN, ER, EPC, UML and Petri Nets within a single modeling method identified as FCML, with a proof of concept named Bee-Up implemented in OMiLAB.

Keywords

  • Hybrid metamodeling
  • BPMN
  • ER
  • EPC
  • UML
  • Petri Nets

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_1
  • Chapter length: 28 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-39417-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. OMG: The BPMN specification page. http://www.bpmn.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  2. Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Scheer, A.W.: ARIS, p. 20. Springer, Heidelberg, Vom Geschäftsprozess zum Anwendungssystem (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Software AG: ARIS—the community page. http://www.ariscommunity.com (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  5. OMG: The UML resource page. http://www.uml.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  6. Petri, C.A., Reisig, W.: Petri net. Scholarpedia 3(4), 6477 (2008). doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.6477

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Reisig, W.: Understanding Petri Nets. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. OMiLAB: The metamodelling page for FCML and the Bee-Up tool. http://www.OMiLAB.org/bee-up (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  9. BOC GmbH: ADOxx—official website. https://www.adoxx.org/live/home (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  10. Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Agile modelling method engineering: lessons learned in the ComVantage project. In: Ralyte, J., Espana, S., Pastor, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th IFIP WG 8.1 Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modelling (PoEM 2015), Valencia, Spain. LNBIP, vol. 235, pp. 356–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2015a)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karagiannis, D.: Agile modeling method engineering. In: Proceedings the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2015), pp. 5−10, Athens, Greece. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jorgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 91–102 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Moody, D.: The physics of notations: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(5), 756–777 (2009)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bencomo, N., France, R., Cheng, B.H.C., Aßmann, U.: Models@run.time. LNCS, vol. 8378. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process-aware informations systems: lessons to be learned from process mining. In: Jensen, L., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 1−26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput. 39(2), 25–31 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Box, G.E.P.: Science and Statistics. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 71, 791–799 (1976)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis: Foundations and Applications. LNAI vol. 3626, Springer (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Staab, S., Studer, R.: Handbook on Ontologies. Springer (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. W3C: OWL 2—the W3C recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview. Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  21. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, DL., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Handbook of Description Logics. Cambridge University Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Staab, S., Walter, T., Gröner, G., Parreiras, F.S.: Model driven engineering with ontology technologies. In: Aßmann, U., Bartho, A., Wende, C. (eds.) Reasoning Web—Semantic Technologies for Software Engineering, LNCS 6325, pp. 62–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling: toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 319–337 (2014)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Voultsidis, M.: ER2SQL—the official page. http://www.er2sql.com (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  25. Andersson, M.: Extracting an entity-relationship schema from a relational database through reverse engineering. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship approach, Manchester, England. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 403−419. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Della, P.G., Di Marco, A., Intriglia, B., Melatti, I., Pierantonio, A.: Xere: towards a natural interoperability between XML and ER diagrams. In: Pezze, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference FASE 2003 part of the Joint European Conference on Theory and Practice of Software, Warsaw, Poland. LNCS, vol. 2621, pp 356–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Liu, C., Li, J.: Designing quality XML Schemas from ER diagrams. In: Yu, J.X., Kitsuregawa, M., Leong, H.V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Web-Age Information Management, Hong Kong, China. LNCS 4016, pp 508–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Embley, D.W., Ling, T.W.: Synergistic database design with an extended Entity-Relationship model. In: Lochovsky, F.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Entity-Relationship approach to database design and querying, pp. 111–128. Elsevier, Toronto, Canada (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Teorey, T.J., Yang, D., Fry, J.P.: A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(2), 197–222 (1986)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Conceptual Modeling conference series. The ER conference series website http://www.conceptualmodeling.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  31. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language user guidelines, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  32. OMG: The XMI specification page. http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  33. OMG: The OCL resource page. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL. Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  34. Carlson, D.: Modeling XML Applications with UML. Addison-Wesley (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  35. OMG: The SysML resource page. http://www.omgsysml.org (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  36. Vanderperren, Y., Mueller, W., He, D., Mischkalla, F., Dehaene, W.: Extending UML for electronic systems design: a code generation perspective. In: Nicolescu, G., O’Connor, I., Piguet, C. (eds.) Design Technology for Heterogeneous Embedded Systems, pp. 13–39. Springer, Netherlands (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. ACM/IEEE: Official page of the 18th edition of the MODELS International Conference. http://cruise.eecs.uottawa.ca/models2015 (2015). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  38. OASIS: BPEL—the official website. https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

    Google Scholar 

  39. WfMC XPDL specification—official website (2015). http://www.xpdl.org. Accessed 1 Oct 2015

  40. White, S.A.: Using BPMN to model a BPEL process. BPTrends 3, 1–18 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.). Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium. The 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 521–532. Namur Univ. Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  42. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process management notation. In: Bellahsene, Z., Leonard, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Montpellier, France. LNCS vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heildelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  43. OMG: The DMN specification page. http://www.omg.org/spec/DMN (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  44. Velitchkov, I.: BPMN versus EPC revisited part 1. http://www.ariscommunity.com/users/ivo/2011-04-11-bpmn-vs-epc-revisited-part-1 (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  45. Burlton, R.: Perspectives on Process Modeling. BPTrends (2009). http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/07-09-COL-POV-Perspectives%20on%20Process%20Modeling-Burlton-cap%20_1_%20RB%20Final.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2016

    Google Scholar 

  46. Swenson, K.: BPMN 2.0: no longer for business professionals. https://social-biz.org/2010/09/01/bpmn-2-0-no-longer-for-business-professionals/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  47. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Meertens, L.O., Iacob, M.E., Eckartz, S.M.: Feasibility of EPC to BPEL model transformations based on ontology and patterns. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the BPM 2009 workshops, Ulm, Germany. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 347−358. Springer, Heildelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC markup language: an XML-based interchange format for event-driven process chains. IseB 4(3), 245–265 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  50. Störrle, H.: Semantics of control-flow in UML 2.0 activities. In: Bottoni, P., Hundhausen, C., Levialdi, S., Tortora, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pp. 235–242. IEEE, Rome, Italy (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M.: Coloured Petri nets. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Int Colloquium ICALP98, Aalborg, Denmark. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Eclipse: The Eclipse Modelling Framework official page. https://eclipse.org/modeling/emf/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  54. Jeusfeld, M.: Metamodeling and method engineering with ConceptBase. In: Jeusfeld, M., Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Metamodeling for Method Engineering, pp. 89–168. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit + a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Bubenko, J., Krogstie, J., Pastor, O., Pernici, B., Rolland, C., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, pp. 109–129. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  56. MetaCase: MetaEdit + tool. http://www.metacase.com/products.html (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  57. W3C: The RDF official resource page. http://www.w3.org/RDF/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  58. W3C: The RIF specification page. https://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  59. Visic, N., Fill, H.-G., Buchmann, R., Karagiannis, D.: A domain-specific language for modelling method definition: from requirements to grammar. In: Rolland, C., Anagnostopoulos, D., Loucopoulos, P., Gonzalez-Perez, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2015), pp. 286–297. IEEE, Athens, Greece (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  60. OMG: The MOF specification page. http://www.omg.org/mof/ (2016). Accessed 1 Mar 2016

  61. Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison Wesley, The Eclipse Series (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kern, H., Hummel, A., Kuhne, S.: Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In: The 11th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, Portland, USA (2011). http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM11/Papers/kern.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015

  64. Zivkovic, S.: Metamodel composition in hybrid modelling—a modular approach. Doctoral thesis, University of Vienna (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Min Tjoa, A., Quirchmayer, G (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference EC-Web 2002—DEXA 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France. LNCS vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A.: Model fragment comparison using natural language processing techniques. In: Hess, T. (ed.) Brenner W, pp. 249–269. Wirtschafts-informatik in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Springer (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modeling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff, Part 1: The Basic Stuff (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic meta modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: ≪UML≫ 2000—The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 323−337. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: an ontology-based framework for domain-specific languages. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Inernational. Conference on MODELS, Denver, USA. LNCS vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Modelling mobile app requirements for semantic traceability. J. Requirements Eng. (2015). doi:10.1007/s00766-015-0235-1

    Google Scholar 

  71. Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, A.: Linked open models: extending linked open data with conceptual model information. Inf. Syst. 56, 174–197 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  72. Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Architect. 8(1), 4–25 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Srdjan Zivkovic and all the participants of the NEMO Summer School Series for the discussion of FCML.

Tool Download http://www.omilab.org/bee-up.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Knowledge Engineering, University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Dimitris Karagiannis, Patrik Burzynski & Michael Walch

  2. Business Information Systems Department, Babes-Bolyai University, 400591, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Robert Andrei Buchmann

  3. Institute for Information and Process Management, University of Applied Sciences St. Gallen, 9001, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Ulrich Reimer

Authors
  1. Dimitris Karagiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Andrei Buchmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrik Burzynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Walch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Karagiannis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer Science, Research Group Knowledge Engineering, University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Dimitris Karagiannis

  2. Institute of Applied Informatics, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt Institute of Applied Informatics, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Heinrich C. Mayr

  3. University of Trento , Trento, Italy

    John Mylopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A., Burzynski, P., Reimer, U., Walch, M. (2016). Fundamental Conceptual Modeling Languages in OMiLAB. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H., Mylopoulos, J. (eds) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39416-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39417-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)