Advertisement

Anatomy of the Unified Enterprise Modelling Ontology

  • Andreas L. Opdahl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 76)

Abstract

The Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (UEML) aims to become a hub for integrated use of enterprise and information systems (IS) models expressed using different languages. A central part of this hub is an extendible ontology into which modelling languages and their constructs can be mapped, so that precise semantic relations between the languages and constructs can be established by comparing their ontology mappings. The paper presents and discusses ongoing work on reformulating the UEML ontology as an OWL2 DL ontology, the Unified Enterprise Modelling Ontology (UEMO).

Keywords

Ontology ontological analysis and evaluation Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (UEML) Unified Enterprise Modelling Ontology (UEMO) OWL2 description logic 

References

  1. 1.
    Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R., Opdahl, A.L., Panetto, H., Verdecho, M.J.: The Unified Enterprise Modelling Language – Overview and Further Work. Computers in Industry 61(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Opdahl, A.L.: A Platform for Interoperable Domain-Specific Enterprise Modelling Based on ISO 15926. In: EDOC 2010 Workshop Proceedings. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Opdahl, A.L.: Incorporating UML Class and Activity Constructs into UEML. In: Trujillo, J., Dobbie, G., Kangassalo, H., Hartmann, S., Kirchberg, M., Rossi, M., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zimányi, E., Frasincar, F. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6413, pp. 244–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kappel, G., Kapsammer, E., Kargl, H., Kramler, G., Reiter, T., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Lifting metamodels to ontologies: A step to the semantic integration of modeling languages. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 528–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziemann, J., Ohren, O., Jäkel, F.-W., Kahl, T., Knothe, T.: Achieving Enterprise Model Interoperability Applying a Common Enterprise Metamodel. In: Doumeingts, G., Müller, J., Morel, G., Vallespir, B. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability New Challenges and Approaches. Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Reidel, Boston (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology II: A World of Systems, vol. 4. Reidel, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3, 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Template-Based Definition of Information Systems and Enterprise Modelling Constructs. In: Green, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Ontologies and Business System Analysis, vol. ch. 6. Idea Group Publishing, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahiat, J.: A Validation Tool for the UEML Approach. Master thesis, University of Namur (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The Even More Irresistible SROIQ. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2006, pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Opdahl, A.L.: The UEML Approach to Modelling Construct Description. In: Doumeingts, G., Müller, J., Morel, G., Vallespir, B. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability – New Challenges and Approaches. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Reasoning in Description Logic. In: Brewka, G. (ed.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Planning, pp. 193–238. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nardi, D., Brachman, R.J.: An Introduction to Description Logics. In: 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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B. and Dean, M. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (May 21, 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Connor, M.J., Das, A.: SQWRL: a query language for OWL. In: OWL – Experiences and Directions Workshop Series (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modelling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and all that Stuff (or, What’s the Semantics of “Semantics”?). Technical Report, Technische Universität Braunschweig (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P., Opdahl, A.L.: Comparing GRL and KAOS using the UEML Approach. In: Gonçalves, R.J., Müller, J.P., Mertins, K., Zelm, M. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability II – New Challenges and Approaches. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roser, S., Bauer, B.: Automatic Generation and Evolution of Model Transformations Using Ontology Engineering Space. J. Data Semantics 11, 32–64 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas L. Opdahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations