Merging Model Driven Architecture and Semantic Web for Business Rules Generation

  • Mouhamed Diouf
  • Sofian Maabout
  • Kaninda Musumbu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4524)


Business rules are statements that express (certain parts of) a business policy, defining terms and defining or constraining the operation of an entreprise, in a declarative manner. The business rule approach is more and more used due to the fact that in such systems, business experts can maintain the complex behavior of their application in a “zero development” environment. There exist more and more business rule management systems (BRMS) and rule engines, adding new needs in the business rules community. Currently the main requirement in this domain is having a standard language for representing business rules, facilitating their integration and share. Works for solving this lack are in progress at e.g OMG and W3C.

The aim of this paper is to propose a way to automatically generate a part of the business rules by combining concepts coming from Model Driven Architecture and Semantic Web using the Ontology Definition Metamodel.


Artificial Intelligence Business rules knowledge based systems Model Driven Architecture knowledge representation  reasoning ontology Semantic Web 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. von Halle, B.: Business Rules Applied. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  2. Java Community Process(JCP): Java Metadata Interface (JMI). Sun Java Specification Request (JSR 40) (2002)Google Scholar
  3. Ross, R.G.: Principles of the Business Rule Approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Taveter, K., Wagner, G.: Agent-Oriented Enterprise Modeling Based on Business Rules. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  5. The Object Management Group OMG: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR). OMG Specification (March 2006)Google Scholar
  6. The Object Management Group OMG: Rule Interchange Format (RIF). W3C Workgroup (2005)Google Scholar
  7. The Object Management Group OMG: Production Rule Representation (PRR) RFP. OMG Request For Proposal (br/2003-09-03) (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 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 2004)Google Scholar
  9. W3C: Rule interchange format Workgroup, (2005)
  10. IBM T.J. Watson Research Center: CommonRules project. Intelligent Agents project (1994-97) (1997)Google Scholar
  11. RuleML: The RuleML initiativeGoogle Scholar
  12. Ilog Jrules: Ilog Jrules,
  13. Drools: Drools rule engine,
  14. Friedman-Hill, E.: JESS in Action. Manning Publications Co, Greenwich, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  15. The Object Management Group OMG: Model Driven Archtecture Guide Version 1.0.1. OMG Specification (June 2003)Google Scholar
  16. Blanc, X.: MDA en action. Eyrolles, France (2005)Google Scholar
  17. The Object Management Group OMG: Meta Objec tFacility (MOF) Specification Version 1.4. OMG Specification (formal/02-04-03) (April 2002)Google Scholar
  18. The Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. OMG Specification (February 2004)Google Scholar
  19. The Object Management Group OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification. OMG Specification (October 2003)Google Scholar
  20. The Action Semantics Consortium. Action semantics for the uml: OMG Specification (ad/2001-03-01) (March 2001)Google Scholar
  21. Passin, T.B.: Explorer’s guide to the Semantic Web. Manning Publications Co, Greenwich, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  22. Cranefield, S., Pan, J.: Bridging the Gap Between the Model-Driven Architecture and Ontology Engineering. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Gaěvic̀, D., Djurié, D., Devedžić, V.: Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, DE (2006)Google Scholar
  24. The Object Management Group OMG: Request For Proposal for Ontology Definition Metamodel. OMG Request For Proposal (March 2003)Google Scholar
  25. Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.K., Kogut, P.A., Hart, L., Smith, J., Holmes III, W.S., Letkowski, I.,J., Aronson, M.L.: Extending UML to Support Ontology Engineering for the Semantic Web. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001 – The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 342. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  26. Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.M., Smith, J.E., Wallace, E., Letkowski, J., Koethe, M.R., Kogut, P.: UOL: Unified Ontology Language. Assorted paper discussed at the DC Ontology SIG Meeting (November 2002)Google Scholar
  27. Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Löffler, P.: Visual Modeling of OWL DL Ontologies Using UML. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 198–213 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. Cranefield, S.: Networked Knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF. Journal of digital information, 1(8) (2001)Google Scholar
  29. Djuric, D., Gasevic, D., Devedzic, V.: Ontology Modeling and MDA. Journal of Object Technology 4(1), 109–128 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the Semantic Web: Transformation-Based Approaches. In: Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pp. 92–106 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. Kendall, E.F., Dutra, M.E., McGuinness, D.L.: Towards A Commercial Ontology Development Environment. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Consference (Posters and Demos) (2002)Google Scholar
  32. The Object Management Group OMG, IBM, and Sandpiper Software: Ontology Definition Metamodel. OMG Specification (June 2006)Google Scholar
  33. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description logics as ontology languages for the semantic web (2003)Google Scholar
  34. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Brachman, R.J., Schmolze, J.G.: An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive Science 9(2), 171–216 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description Logics as Ontology Languages for the Semantic Web. In: Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, pp. 228–248 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: Racer: An owl reasoning agent for the semantic web (2003)Google Scholar
  38. Knublauch, H.: Ontology-Driven Software Development in the Context of the Semantic Web: An Example Scenario with Protege/OWL. In: 1st International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web (MDSW2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  39. Boley, H., Tabet, S., Wagner, G.: Design Rationale for RuleML: A Markup Language for Semantic Web Rules. In: SWWS, pp. 381–401 (2001)Google Scholar
  40. Mellor, S.J., Clark, A.N., Futagami, T.: Guest Editors’ Introduction: Model-Driven Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 14–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Volz, R.: Web Ontology Reasoning with Logic Databases. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Institut AIFB, D-76128 Karlsruhe (2004)Google Scholar
  42. The Object Management Group OMG: MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1. OMG Specification (formal/05-09-01) (2005)Google Scholar
  43. Diouf, M., Musumbu, K., Maabout, S.: Standard Business Rules Language: why and how? In: The 2006 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (June 2006)Google Scholar
  44. Diouf, M., Xiong, J., Farenc, C., Winckler, M.: AUTOMATING GUIDELINES INSPECTION From Web site Specification to Deployment. CADUI (2006)Google Scholar
  45. Wu, C.G.: Modeling Rule-Based Systems with EMF. Eclipse Corner Article (2004)Google Scholar
  46. W3C OWL’s workgroup  Smith, M. K.,  Welty, C., McGuinness, D. L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Standard (February 2004)Google Scholar
  47. Eclipse project: Eclipse Ontology Definition Metamodel project. Eclipse project (2006)Google Scholar
  48. De Tommasi, M., Corallo, A.: SBEAVER: A Tool for Modeling Business Vocabularies and Business Rules. In: Gabrys, B., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4253, pp. 1083–1091. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mouhamed Diouf
    • 1
  • Sofian Maabout
    • 1
  • Kaninda Musumbu
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de Bordeaux I, LaBRI (UMR 5800 du CNRS), Domaine Universitaire 351, cours de la Libération 33405 Talence CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations