Advertisement

Combining DSLs and Ontologies Using Metamodel Integration

  • Tobias Walter
  • Jürgen Ebert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5658)

Abstract

This paper reports on a case study where the domain specific language BEDSL for the description of network devices for computer networks is combined with the feature description language FODA used for defining the variability structure of product lines. Furthermore, annotations by fragments of the web ontology language OWL can be added.

In essence, the approach is a three-way integration, which regards two documents written in BEDSL and FODA, respectively, and semantic OWL-annotations as three equally important views of the system under discussion. The integration of languages is done on the level of their metamodels. The standard metamodel of OWL 2 is merged with two self-developed metamodels for the respective domain specific languages.

The merge is loss-free, i.e. the resulting merged model still contains all information from its parts. Thus, the BEDSL part can be used to visualize the network model, the FODA part still defines the feature structure of the corresponding product line and the OWL part can be extracted and fed into an OWL tool to assert the semantic conditions.

Keywords

Domain Model Object Property Network Device Concrete Syntax Ontology Language 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Comarch: Definition of the case study requirements. MOST Project Deliverable (July 2008), http://www.most-project.eu
  2. 2.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Software Engineering Institute (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (December 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081202/
  4. 4.
    IEC, International Engineering Consortium: Operations Support Systems (OSS) (2007), http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/oss/
  5. 5.
    Horridge, M., Drummond, N., Goodwin, J., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Wang, H.: The Manchester OWL Syntax. In: OWLED 2006 Second Workshop on OWL Experiences and Directions, Athens, GA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG: Ontology Definition Metamodel. Object Modeling Group (November 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.: Domain-Specific Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bézivin, J., Gerbé, O.: Towards a Precise Definition of the OMG/MDA Framework. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification (January 2006), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-01-01.pdf
  10. 10.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Happel, H.J., Seedorf, S.: Applications of Ontologies in Software Engineering. In: International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE 2006), Athens, USA (November 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V.: MDA-based automatic OWL ontology development. International journal on software tools for technology transfer (Print) 9(2), 103–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Winter, A.: On marrying ontological and metamodeling technical spaces. In: Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 439–448. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang, K., Lee, J., Donohoe, P.: Feature-oriented product line engineering. IEEE Software 19(4), 58–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun, J., Zhang, H., Wang, H.: Formal Semantics and Verification for Feature Modeling. In: ICECCS 2005: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 303–312. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaševic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V., Damjanovic, V.: Approaching OWL and MDA Through Technological Spaces. In: The 3rd Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME 2004), Lisbon, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Winter, A.: TwoUse: Integrating UML Models and OWL Ontologies. Arbeitsberichte aus dem Fachbereich Informatik 16/2007, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fachbereich Informatik (April 2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brauer, M., Lochmann, H.: Towards Semantic Integration of Multiple Domain-Specific Languages Using Ontological Foundations. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on (Software) Language Engineering (ATEM 2007) co-located with MoDELS (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Estublier, J., Ionita, A., Vega, G.: A Domain Composition Approach. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Applications of UML/MDA to Software Systems (UMSS), Las Vegas, USA (June 2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karsai, G., Gray, J., Bloor, G., Works, P.: Integration of Design Tools and Semantic Interoperability. In: Engineering and Technical Management Symposium, Dallas (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ebert, J., Riediger, V., Winter, A.: Graph Technology in Reverse Engineering, The TGraph Approach. In: Gimnich, R., Kaiser, U., Quante, J., Winter, A. (eds.) 10th Workshop Software Reengineering (WSR 2008), Bonn, GI. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 126, pp. 67–81 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Walter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jürgen Ebert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.ISWeb — Information Systems and Semantic Web, Institute for Computer ScienceUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations