Model-Driven Software Development

  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
  • Gerd Gröner
  • Tobias Walter
  • Andreas Friesen
  • Tirdad Rahmani
  • Jens Lemcke
  • Hannes Schwarz
  • Krzysztof Miksa
  • Christian Wende
  • Uwe Aßmann


Since ontology-driven software development (ODSD) is an integration of ontology technologies and model-driven software development (MDSD), it is necessary to identify and analyse technologies applied in MDSD. We define basic concepts, such as model-driven engineering, metamodelling, model transformation and technological space, and describe the state-of-the-art implementations of these concepts.


Modelling Language Unify Modelling Language Object Constraint Language Transformation Language Concrete Syntax 
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.


  1. 1.
    Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin, LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Aizenbud-Reshef, B.T. Nolan, J. Rubin, Y. Shaham-Gafni, Model traceability. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 515–526 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Aizenbud-Reshef, R.F. Paige, J. Rubin, Y. Shaham-Gafni, D.S. Kolovos, Operational semantics for traceability. in ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2005 Proceedings, Nürnberg, 2005, pp. 7–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Amann, M. Scholl, Gram: a graph data model and query language. in European Conference on Hypertext, 1992Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Antoniol, G. Canfora, G. Casazza, A. De Lucia, E. Merlo, Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(10), 970–983 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Apostel, Towards the formal study of models in a non formal science. Synthese 12, 125–161 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Atkinson, T. Kühne, Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. Software, IEEE, vol. 20(5), pp. 36–41 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Atkinson, M. Gutheil, B. Kennel, A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 99(RapidPosts), 742–755 (2009). ISSN 0098-5589. doi: Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Baader, B. Suntisrivaraporn. Debugging SNOMED CT using axiom pinpointing in the description logic \({\mathcal{E}\mathcal{L}}^{+}\). in KR-MED’08, vol. 410, CEUR-WS, 2008Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Baader, S. Brandt, C. Lutz, Pushing the \(\mathcal{E}\mathcal{L}\) envelope. in Proceedings of the 19th Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D.L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). ISBN 0-521-78176-0zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Baader, C. Lutz, B. Suntisrivaraporn, Is tractable reasoning in extensions of the description logic EL useful in practice? in Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Methods for Modalities (M4M-05), 2005Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Baader, R. Peñaloza, B. Suntisrivaraporn, Pinpointing in the description logic \(\mathcal{E}\mathcal{L}\). in Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2007), CEUR-WS, 2007Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Baar, The definition of transitive closure with OCL—limitations and applications. in Perspectives of System Informatics, ed. by M. Broy, A.V. Zamulin. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2890 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 979–997. doi:
  15. 15.
    A. Bartho, Creating and maintaining tutorials with DEFT. in Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’09), May 2009, pp. 309–310Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Bartho, S. Zivkovic, D2.2—modeled software guidance/engineering processes and systems. Project Deliverable ICT216691/TUD/WP2-D2/D/PU/b1.00, MOST Project, February 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Bartho, H. Kühn, S. Tinella, W. Utz, S. Zivkovic, D2.1—requirements definition of ontology-driven software process guidance system. Project Deliverable ICT216691/BOC/WP2-D1/D/PU/b1.00, MOST Project, 2008Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Batory, Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. Software Product Lines, 2005, pp. 7–20Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Beckert, U. Keller, P.H. Schmitt, Translating the object constraint language into first-order predicate logic. in Proceedings of the Second Verification Workshop: VERIFY 2002, July 25–26, 2002, Copenhagen, Denmark, vol. 02–07, ed. by S. Autexier, H. Mantel. DIKU technical report, DIKU, 2002Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Beckett (ed.), RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004,
  21. 21.
    A. Berglund, S. Boag, D. Chamberlin, M.F. Fernández, M. Kay, J. Robie, J. Siméon (eds.), XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 14 December 2010,
  22. 22.
    J. Bézivin, On the unification power of models. Software Syst. Model. 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Bézivin, O. Gerbe, Towards a precise definition of the OMG/MDA framework. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2001, p. 273Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Bézivin, I. Kurtev, Model-based Technology Integration with the Technical Space Concept, in Proceedings of the Metainformatics Symposium, Springer, 2005Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Bézivin, F. Jouault, D. Touzet, An introduction to the atlas model management architecture. Research Report LINA, (05-01), 2005Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Bildhauer, J. Ebert, V. Riediger, H. Schwarz, Using the TGraph approach for model fact repositories. in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop MoRSe 2008: Model Reuse Strategies—Can requirements drive reuse of software models? 2008, pp. 9–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Bézivin, F. Jouault, I. Kurtev, P. Valduriez, Model-based DSL frameworks. in OOPSLA (ACM, New York, 2006), pp. 22–26Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Bildhauer, T. Horn, V. Riediger, H. Schwarz, S. Strauß, grUML—A UML based modelling language for TGraphs. Technical report, University of Koblenz-Landau (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Böhlen, Ein Parametrisierbares Graph-Datenbanksystem für Entwicklungswerkzeuge. (Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany, 2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Boley, G. Hallmark, M. Kifer, A. Paschke, A. Polleres, D. Reynolds (eds.), RIF Core Dialect, W3C Recommendation 22 June 2010.
  31. 31.
    G. Boudol, Towards a lambda-calculus for concurrent and communicating systems. in TAPSOFT’89 (Springer, Berlin, 1989), pp. 149–161Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Brcina, M. Riebisch, Defining a traceability link semantics for design decision support. In: ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2008 Proceedings, pp. 39–48. Sintef, Trondheim (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Brockmans, P. Haase, P. Hitzler, R. Studer, A metamodel and UML profile for rule-extended OWL DL ontologies. in 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4011 (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 303–316Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Brockmans, R. Volz, A. Eberhart, P. Löffler, Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. in Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference, ed. by S. McIlraith et al. (Springer, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004), pp. 198–213Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Broekstra, A. Kampman, F. van Harmelen, Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. in The Semantic Web—ISWC 2002, vol. 2342/2002, 2002, pp. 54–68. doi:10.1007/3-540-48005-6_7.
  36. 36.
    A.D. Brucker, B. Wolff, A proposal for a formal ocl semantics in isabelle/hol. in TPHOLs ’02: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (Springer, London, UK, 2002), pp. 99–114. ISBN 3-540-44039-9Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A.D. Brucker, B. Wolff, The HOL-OCL book. Technical Report 525, ETH Zurich, 2006
  38. 38.
    T. Bruckhaus, N. Madhavii, I. Janssen, J. Henshaw, The impact of tools on software productivity. IEEE Software 13(5) (September 1996), Vol. 13(5), pp. 29–38Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    F. Budinsky, S. Brodsky, E. Merks, Eclipse Modeling Framework (Pearson, New Jersey, 2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. Calero, F. Ruiz, M. Piattini, Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology (Springer, Berlin, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Calvanese, G. de Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, Tailoring owl for data intensive ontologies. in Proceedings of the 1st OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWL-ED 2005), 2005Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Calvanese, G.D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. in Proceedings of AAAI 2005, 2005Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. Calvanese, G.D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, G. Vetere, DL-Lite: Practical reasoning for rich DLs. in Proceedings of the DL2004 Workshop, 2004Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    P. Carlshamre, K. Sandahl, M. Lindvall, B. Regnell, J. Natt och Dag, An industrial survey of requirements interdependencies in software product release planning. in RE ’01: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto (IEEE Computer Society, USA, 2001)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J.J. Carroll, I. Dickinson, C. Dollin, D. Reynolds, A. Seaborne, K. Wilkinson, Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. Technical Report HPL-2003-146, Digital Media Systems Laboratory, HP Laboratories, Bristol, 2003.
  46. 46.
    R. Charette, Software Engineering Environments: Concepts and Technology (Intertext Publications/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    X. Chen, Extraction and visualization of traceability relationships between documents and source code. in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2010, pp. 505–510Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J. Cleland-Huang, C.K. Chang, M. Christensen, Event-based traceability for managing evolutionary change. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 29(9), 796–810 (2003). doi: Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    P. Constantopoulos, M. Jarke, J. Mylopoulos, Y. Vassiliou, The software information base: a server for reuse. VLDB J. 4(1), 1–43 (1995). ISSN 1066-8888. doi: Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    G. Cysneiros, A. Zisman, Traceability and completeness checking for agent-oriented systems. in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’08) (ACM, New York, 2008), pp. 71–77. doi:
  51. 51.
    K. Czarnecki, Generative Programming: Principles and Techniques of Software Engineering Based on Automated Configuration and Fragment-Based Componet Models, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Ilmenau, 1998Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    K. Czarnecki, C. Kim, Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. in International Workshop on Software Factories, Citeseer, 2005Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, U. Eisenecker, Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process. Improv. Pract. 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Å.G. Dahlstedt, A. Persson, Requirements interdependencies—moulding the state of research into a research agenda. in Requirements Engineering Forum on Software Quality (REFSQ), Klagenfurt/Velden, 2003, pp. 71–80Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    C.V. Damásio, A. Analyti, G. Antoniou, G. Wagner, Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. in Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Budva, Montenegro (10–11 June 2006), Lecture Notes in Computer Science REWERSE, 2006, pp. 149–163Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    A. De Lucia, R. Oliveto, G. Tortora, ADAMS re-trace: traceability link recovery via latent semantic indexing. in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’08) (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2008), pp. 839–842. doi:
  57. 57.
    J. Dick, Rich traceability. in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Edinburgh, 2002Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    F.M. Donini, D. Nardi, R. Rosati, Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 3(2), 177–225 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    N. Drivalos, D.S. Kolovos, R.F. Paige, K.J. Fernandes, Engineering a DSL for software traceability. in Software Language Engineering: First International Conference, SLE 2008, Toulouse, France, September 29–30, 2008. Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2008, pp. 151–167Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    N. Drivalos-Matragkas, D.S. Kolovos, R.F. Paige, K.J. Fernandes, A state-based approach to traceability maintenance. in Proceedings of the 6th ECMFA Traceability Workshop 2010 (ECMFA-TW), ed. by J. Oldevik, G.K. Olsen, D.S. Kolovos, 2010, pp. 23–30Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    J. Ebert, D. Bildhauer, Reverse Engineering Using Graph Queries. In: Andy Schürr, Claus Lewerentz, Gregor Engels, Wilhelm Schäfer, Bernhard Westfechtel: Graph Transformations and Model Driven Engineering. 335–362, Springer Verlag. 2010Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    J. Ebert, A. Franzke, A declarative approach to graph based modeling. in Graphtheoretic Concepts in Computer Science, ed. by E. Mayr, G. Schmidt, G. Tinhofer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 903 (Springer, Berlin, 1995), pp. 38–50.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    J. Ebert, V. Riediger, A. Winter, Graph technology in reverse engineering, the TGraph approach. in Proceedings of the 10th Workshop Software Reengineering (WSR 2008), ed. by R. Gimnich, U. Kaiser, J. Quante, A. Winter. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 126, pp. 67–81 GI, Bonn, 2008.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    J. Ebert, R. Süttenbach, I. Uhe, Meta-CASE in practice: a case for KOGGE. in Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Springer, Berlin, 1997), pp. 203–216Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    J. Ebert, B. Kullbach, V. Riediger, A. Winter, GUPRO. Generic understanding of programs—an overview. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 72(2) (2002), pp. 47–56Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    A. Espinoza, P.P. Alarcón, J. Garbajosa, Analyzing and systematizing current traceability schemas. in SEW ’06: 30th Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop SEW-30, 2006, pp. 21–32. doi:
  67. 67.
    J.-M. Favre, T. Nguyen, Towards a megamodel to model software evolution through transformations. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(3), 59–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    D. Firesmith, Are your requirements complete? J. Object Tech. 4(1), 27–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    J.J. Fleck, Overview of the Structure of the NGOSS Architecture. White paper (Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, May 2003)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    D. Forum, DSM forum web page, 2010.
  71. 71.
    M. Fowler, Language workbenches: the killer-app for domain specific languages? Online Web Page,, 2005
  72. 72.
    A. Friesen, J. Lemcke, D. Oberle, T. Rahmani, D6.1—description of functional and non-functional requirements. Project Deliverable ICT216691/SAP/WP6-D1/D/PU/b1, MOST Project, 2008Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    A. Friesen, J. Lemcke, D. Oberle, T. Rahmani, D6.2—case studies design. Project Deliverable ICT216691/SAP/WP6-D2/D/RE/b1, MOST Project, 2009Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, J. Vlissides, Design Patterns: Elements Of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1995)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    A. Goknil, I. Kurtev, K. van den Berg, Change impact analysis based on formalization of trace relations for requirements. in ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2008 Proceedings, ed. by J. Oldevik, G.K. Olsen, T. Neple, R. Paige, 2008, pp. 59–75Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    A. Goknil, I. Kurtev, K. van den Berg, J.-W. Veldhuis, Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing. Software Syst. Model. December 2009. doi:10.1007/s10270-009-0142-3. Available online at
  77. 77.
    B.C. Grau, A possible simplification of the semantic web architecture. in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2004, New York, NY, USA, May 17–20, 2004 (ACM, New York, 2004), pp. 704–713Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    B.C. Grau, B. Motik, Z. Wu, A. Fokoue, C. Lutz, Owl 2 web ontology language tractable fragments. W3C Working Draft, 11 April 2008. Available at Accessed 14 June 2008
  79. 79.
    M. Grechanik, K.S. McKinley, D.E. Perry, Recovering and Using Use-Case-Diagram-To-Source-Code Traceability Links. in ESEC-FSE ’07: Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering, 2007Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    J. Greenfield, K. Short, Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks and Tools, 1st edn. (Wiley, Indiana, 2004)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    S. Grimm, B. Motik, Closed world reasoning in the semantic web through epistemic operators. in OWLED Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 188., 2005Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    G. Groener, S. Staab, Modeling and query pattern for process retrieval in OWL. in Proceedings of 8th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5823 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 243–259Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    P. Groot, H. Stuckenschmidt, H. Wache, Approximating description logic classification for semantic web reasoning. in Proceedings of ESWC2005, 2005Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    G.M. Gwyner, J. Lee, Defining specialization for process models. Technical report, Boston University School of Management, 1995Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    V. Haarslev, R. Moller, M. Wessel, Querying the semantic web with racer + nRQL. in Proceedings of the KI-04 Workshop on Applications of Description Logics, 2004Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    P. Haase, G. Qi, An Analysis of Approaches to Resolving Inconsistencies in DL-based Ontologies, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics (IWOD’07), Innsbruck, Austria, 2007Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    T. Hall, S. Beecham, A. Rainer, Requirements problems in twelve software companies: An empirical analysis. IEE Proc. Software 149(5), 153–160 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    H. Happel, S. Seedorf, Applications of ontologies in software engineering. Workshop on Sematic-Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE), 2006Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    H. He, A.K. Singh, Graphs-at-a-time: query language and access methods for graph databases. in Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD ’08) (ACM, New York, 2008), pp. 405–418. ISBN 978-1-60558-102-6Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    F. Heidenreich, Towards systematic ensuring well-formedness of software product lines. 1st Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development, 2009Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    F. Heidenreich, J. Kopcsek, C. Wende, FeatureMapper: mapping features to models. 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2008Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    F. Heidenreich, J. Johannes, S. Karol, M. Seifert, C. Wende, Derivation and refinement of textual syntax for models. in Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5562 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 114–129Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, C. Gonzalez-Perez, A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Inform. Software Tech. 47(1), 49–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    P. Hitzler, D. Vrandecic, Resolution-based approximate reasoning for OWL DL. in Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2005), 2005Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    D.A. Holland, PQL language guide and reference. Web document, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2009.
  96. 96.
    T. Horn, J. Ebert, The GReTL transformation language. ICMT 183–197 (2011)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    M. Horridge, N. Drummond, J. Goodwin, A.L. Rector, R. Stevens, H. Wang, The manchester owl syntax. in OWLED, ed. by B.C. Grau, P. Hitzler, C. Shankey, E. Wallace, B.C. Grau, P. Hitzler, C. Shankey, E. Wallace. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 216., 2006Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    I. Horrocks, P. Patel-Schneider, Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Semant. 1(4), 345–357 (2004). ISSN 1570-8268.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, U. Sattler, The even more irresistible sroiq. in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006) (AAAI Press, USA, 2006), pp. 57–67Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    I. Horrocks, P.F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, M. Dean, SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member Submission 21 May 2004., 2004.
  101. 101.
    J. Huffman Hayes, A. Dekhtyar, S.K. Sundaram, Advancing candidate link generation for requirements tracing: the study of methods. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 32(1), 4–19 (2006). doi: Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    C. Hurtado, A. Poulovassilis, P. Wood, A relaxed approach to RDF querying. in Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006), 2006Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    U. Hustadt, B. Motik, U. Sattler, Reducing \({\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{Q}}^{-}\) description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. in Proceedings of KR2004, 2004, pp. 152–162Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    M. Jarke, Requirements tracing. Comm. ACM 41(12), 32–36 (1998). doi:
  105. 105.
    W. Jirapanthong, A. Zisman, XTraQue: traceability for product line systems. Software Syst. Model. 8(1), 117–144 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s10270-007-0066-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    F. Jouault, Loosely coupled traceability for ATL. in ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2005 Proceedings, Nürnberg (2005), pp. 29–37Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    F. Jouault, J. Bézivin, Km3: a dsl for metamodel specification, in Proceedings of 8th FMOODS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4037 (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 171–185Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    F. Jouault, F. Allilaire, J. Bézivin, I. Kurtev, ATL: A model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1–2), 31–39 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    H. Kaindl, The missing link in requirements engineering. SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes 18(2), 30–39 (1993). doi:
  110. 110.
    A. Kalyanpur, Debugging and repair of OWL ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 2006Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, M. Horridge, E. Sirin, Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 4825, 267 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, B. Cuenca-Grau, Repairing unsatisfiable concepts in OWL ontologies. The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 2006, pp. 170–184Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, J. Hendler, Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(4), 268–293 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Nowak, S. Peterson, Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    M. Kasztelnik, K.M. Miksa, P. Sabina, D5.2—case study design. Project Deliverable ICT216691/CMR/WP5-D2/D/RE/b1, MOST Project, February 2009Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    S. Kelly, J. Tolvanen, Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation (Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 2008)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    S. Kent, Model driven engineering, in Proceedings of Third International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2335 (Springer, Berlin, 2002), pp. 286–298Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    N. Kiesel, A. Schürr, B. Westfechtel, GRAS, a graph oriented (software) engineering database system. Information Systems 20(1), 21–51 (1995). ISSN 0306-4379. doi:
  119. 119.
    A.G. Kleppe, J.B. Warmer, W. Bast, MDA Explained, The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 2002)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    H. Knublauch, R. Fergerson, N. Noy, M. Musen. The Protégé OWL plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. In ISWC-2004, Lecture notes in computer science, 2004, Vol. 3298, pp. 229–243Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    M. Krötzsch, S. Rudolph, P. Hitzler, Conjunctive queries for a tractable fragment of owl 1.1, in ISWC/ASWC, 2007, pp. 310–323Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    B. Kullbach, A. Winter, Querying as an enabling technology in software reengineering, in Proceedings of the 3rd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance & Reengineering, ed. by C. Verhoef, P. Nesi (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 1999), pp. 42–50.
  123. 123.
    B. Liskov, Data abstraction and hierarchy, in OOPSLA ’87: Addendum to the Proceedings on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (Addendum) (ACM, New York, 1987), pp. 17–34. ISBN 0-89791-266-7. doi:
  124. 124.
    P. Mäder, O. Gotel, I. Philippow, Rule-based maintenance of post-requirements traceability relations, in Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2008, pp. 23–32Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    J.I. Maletic, M.L. Collard, TQL: A query language to support traceability, in Proceedings of 5th ACM International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (TEFSE’09), Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 18 (2009), pp. 16–20Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    J.I. Maletic, M.L. Collard, B. Simoes, An XML based approach to support the evolution of model-to-model traceability links, in Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Long Beach, 2005, pp. 67–72Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    J.I. Maletic, E.V. Munson, A. Marcus, T.N. Nguyen, Using a hypertext model for traceability link conformance analysis, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Montreal, 2003Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    M. Mannion, B. Keepence, Smart requirements. ACM Software Eng. Notes 20, 42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    D.L. McGuinness, F. van Harmelen, Owl web ontology language overview. W3C Working Draft, 10 February 2004Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    K. Mehlhorn, S. Näher, C. Uhrig, The LEDA platform of combinatorial and geometric computing, in Proceedings of the 24th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP ’97), 1997, pp. 7–16. ISBN 3-540-63165-8Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    K. Miksa, M. Kasztelnik, D5.1—definition of the case study requirements. Project Deliverable ICT216691/CMR/WP5-D1/D/PU/b1, MOST Project, September 2008Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    K. Miksa, M. Kasztelnik, P. Sabina, T. Walter, Towards semantic modelling of network physical devices, in Models in Software Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6002 (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 329–343Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    J. Miller, J. Mukerji, Mda guide version 1.0.1. Technical report, OMG, 2003Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    R. Milner, A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, Berlin, 1980)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    R. Milner, Communication and Concurrency (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, D. Walker, A calculus of mobile processes, I Inform. Comput. 100(1), 1–40 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    M. Moon, H.S. Chae, T. Nam, K. Yeom, A metamodeling approach to tracing variability between requirements and architecture in software product lines, in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2007), pp. 927–933Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    B. Motik, On the properties of metamodeling in OWL. J. Log. Comput. 17(4), 617–637 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    B. Motik, B.C. Grau, I. Horrocks, Z. Wu, A. Fokoue, C. Lutz, Owl 2 web ontology language profiles. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009. Available at
  140. 140.
    B. Motik, P.F. Patel-Schneider, I. Horrocks, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language—Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. Working draft, W3C, April 2008Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    M. Nagl, An incremental compiler as component of a system for software generation, in Programmiersprachen und Programmentwicklung, 6. Fachtagung des Fachausschusses Programmiersprachen der GI (Springer, London, UK, 1980), pp. 29–44Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    T.N. Nguyen, E.V. Munson, A model for conformance analysis of software documents, in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE), 2003Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    K. Nørmark, Elucidative programming. Nord. J. Comput. 7(2):87–105 (2000)Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    I. Ober, A. Prinz, What do we need metamodels for? in Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Workshop on UML and Software Modelling (NWUML’06), Norway, 2006Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    OMG, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.2, Object Management Group, 2009Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    G.K. Olsen, J. Oldevik, Scenarios of traceability in model to text transformations, in Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Model-Driven Architecture—Foundation and Applications (ECMDA-FA 2007), ed. by D.H. Akehurst, R. Vogel, R.F. Paige, 2007Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    OMG. MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification, Object Management Group, 2005.
  148. 148.
    OMG. Object Constraint Language Specification, version 2.0. Object Modeling Group, 2005. http://fparreiras/specs/OCLSpec06-05-01.pdf
  149. 149.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification. Object Management Group, 2006Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    OMG. Ontology Definition Metamodel. Object Modeling Group 2007Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1.2. Object Modeling Group, 2007. http://fparreiras/specs/UML2.1.1.formal07-02-03.pdf
  152. 152.
    OMG. Software Process Engineering Metamodel (spem) Specification—Version 2.0 Object Management Group, 2008.
  153. 153.
    OMG, OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Infrastructure. Version 2.2, Object Management Group, 2009.
  154. 154.
    OMG. Unified Modeling LanguageTM, OMG Available Specification, Version 2.2. Object Management Group (OMG), 2009.
  155. 155.
    J.Z. Pan, I. Horrocks, RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: two semantics for RDFS, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), 2003Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    J.Z. Pan, E. Thomas, Approximating OWL-DL ontologies, in AAAI-2007, 2007, pp. 1434–1439Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    J.Z. Pan, I. Horrocks, G. Schreiber, OWL FA: A metamodeling extension of OWL DL, in Proceedings of the First International OWL Experience and Directions Workshop (OWLED-2005), 2005Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    F.S. Parreiras, S. Staab, Using ontologies with uml class-based modeling: The twouse approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(11), 1194–1207 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    F.S. Parreiras, T. Walter, C. Wende, D1.3—report on transformation patterns. Project Deliverable ICT216691/UoKL/WP1-D3/D/PU/a1, MOST Project, (2009)Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    P.F. Patel-Schneider, B. Motik, (eds.), OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Mapping to RDF Graphs, W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009,
  161. 161.
    B. Pierce, in Foundational Calculi for Programming Languages, ed. by A.B. Tucker. Handbook of Computer Science and Engineering, chapter 139 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996), pp. 2190–2207Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    F.A. Pinheiro, An object-oriented library for tracing requirements. in Anais do WER99—Workshop em Engenharia de Requisitos, Buenos Aires, 1999Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    F.A. Pinheiro, Requirements traceability, in Perspectives on Software Requirements, chapter 5, ed. by J.C. Sampaio do Prado Leite, J.H. Doorn (Kluwer Academic, New York, 2003), pp. 91–113Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    K. Pohl, Process-Centered Requirements Engineering. Advanced Software Development Series (Research Studies Press, Taunton, Somerset, England, 1996)Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F. Van Der Linden, Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques (Springer, Berlin, 2005). ISBN 978-3540243724zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    A. Polleres, F. Scharffe, R. Schindlauer, Sparql +  + for mapping between rdf vocabularies, in OTM Conferences (1), ed. by R. Meersman, Z. Tari. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4803 (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 878–896. ISBN 978-3-540-76846-3Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    E. Prud’hommeaux, A. Seaborne, SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation, 15 January 2008.
  168. 168.
    B. Ramesh, M. Jarke, Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 27(1), 58–93 (2001). doi: Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    R. Reiter, A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Y. Ren, Syntactic approximation in PDDSL: A completeness guarantee. Technical report, University of Aberdeen, 2010. Http://
  171. 171.
    Y. Ren, J.Z. Pan, Y. Zhao, Closed world reasoning for OWL2 with NBox. J. Tsinghua Sci. Tech. Vol. 15(6), December (2010) pp. 692–701Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Y. Ren, J.Z. Pan, Y. Zhao, Soundness preserving approximation for TBox reasoning, in Proceedings of the 25th AAAI Conference Conference (AAAI2010), 2010Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Y. Ren, J.Z. Pan, Y. Zhao, Towards soundness preserving approximation for abox reasoning of owl2, in Description Logics Workshop 2010 (DL2010), 2010Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Y. Ren, J.Z. Pan, Y. Zhao, Abox syntactic approximation: A technical report. Technical report, University of Aberdeen, 2011. Http://
  175. 175.
    Y. Ren, G. Gröner, J. Lemcke, T. Rahmani, A. Friesen, Y. Zhao, J.Z. Pan, S. Staab, Validating process refinement with ontologies, in Description Logics, ed. by B.C. Grau, I. Horrocks, B. Motik, U. Sattler. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 477., 2009Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Y. Ren, G. Gröner, J. Lemcke, T. Rahmani, A. Friesen, Y. Zhao, J.Z. Pan, S. Staab, Process refinement validation and explanation with ontology reasoning. Technical report, University of Aberdeen, University of Koblenz-Landau and AP AG, 2011.
  177. 177.
    M. Richters, A Precise Approach to Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Bremen, 2002Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    D. Roe, K. Broda, A. Russo, Mapping UML Models incorporating OCL Constraints into Object-Z. Technical report, August 2003.
  179. 179.
    D. Sangiorgi, Bisimulation for higher-order process calculi. Inform. Comput. 131, 141–178 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    D.C. Schmidt, Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39, 25–31 (2006), ISSN 0018-9162Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    P.H. Schmitt, A Model Theoretic Semantics for OCL, in Proceedings of IJCAR Workshop on Precise Modelling and Deduction for Object-oriented Software Development, Siena, Italy, 2001Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    H. Schwarz, D4.2—report on traceability information extracting and using traceability information during the developement process. Project Deliverable ICT216691/UoKL/WP4-D2/D/PU/b1, MOST Project, January 2009Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    H. Schwarz, Taxonomy and definition of the explicit traceability information suppliable for guiding model-driven, ontology-supported development. Project Deliverable ICT216691/UoKL/WP4-D1/D/PU/b1, MOST Project, January 2009Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    H. Schwarz, J. Ebert, Bridging query languages in semantic and graph technologies, in Reasoning Web—6th International Summer School 2010 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    H. Schwarz, J. Ebert, A. Winter, Graph-based traceability: a comprehensive approach. Software Syst. Model., November 2009 doi:10.1007/s10270-009-0141-4Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    H. Schwarz, J. Ebert, V. Riediger, A. Winter, Towards querying of traceability information in the context of software evolution, in 10th Workshop Software Reengineering (WSR 2008), ed. by R. Gimnich, U. Kaiser, J. Quante, A. Winter. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 126. GI, 2008Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    E. Seidewitz, What models mean. IEEE Software 20(5), 26–32 (2003). ISSN 0740-7459. doi: Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    B. Selman, H. Kautz, Knowledge compilation and theory approximation. J. ACM 43(2), 193–224 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    I. Seylan, E. Franconi, J. De Bruijn, Effective query rewriting with ontologies over dboxes, in IJCAI’09: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009), pp. 923–929Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    S.A. Sherba, K.M. Anderson, M. Faisal, A framework for mapping traceability relationships, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Montreal, 2003Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    S. Si-Said, C. Rolland, Formalising guidance for the crews goal-scenario approach to requirements engineering, in 8th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, 1998, pp. 172–190Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, S. Schenk, A. Winter, Model driven specification of ontology translations, in Conceptual Modeling—ER 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, Berlin, 2008)Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    E. Sirin, B. Parsia, Sparql-dl: Sparql query for owl-dl, in OWLED, ed. by C. Golbreich, A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 258., 2007Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    E. Sirin, J. Tao, Towards integrity constraints in OWL, in OWL: Experiences and Directions, Sixth International Workshop (OWLED 2009), 2009Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    E. Sirin, B. Parsia, B. Grau, A. Kalyanpur, Y. Katz, Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    M. Śmiałek, Towards a requirements driven software development system. Poster presentation at MoDELS, Genova, Italy, 2006Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    G. Smith, The Object-Z Specification Language (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000). ISBN 0-7923-8684-1zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    X. Song, W.M. Hasling, G. Mangla, B. Sherman, Lessons learned from building a web-based requirements tracing system, in ICRE ’98: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 1998), pp. 41–50. ISBN 0-8186-8356-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    D. Steinberg, F. Budinsky, M. Paternostro, E. Merks, EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, 2008)Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    W. Stinson, Views of Software Development Environments: Automation of Engineering and Engineering of Automation. In ACM SIGSOFT, Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 14(5) July 1989, pp. 108–117, ACMGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    H. Stuckenschmidt, F. van Harmelen, Approximating terminological queries, in Proceedings of FQAS2002, 2002, pp. 329–343Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    B. Suntisrivaraporn, Module extraction and incremental classification: a pragmatic aApproach for \({\mathcal{E}\mathcal{L}}^{+}\) ontologies, in Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’08), ed. by S. Bechhofer, M. Hauswirth, J. Hoffmann, M. Koubarakis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5021 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 230–244Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    E. Thomas, J.Z. Pan, Y. Ren, TrOWL: Tractable OWL 2 reasoning infrastructure, in Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2010), 2010Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    E. Tryggeseth, Ø. Nytrø, Dynamic traceability links supported by a system architecture description, in ICSM ’97: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, 1997, pp. 180–187Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    A. von Knethen, B. Paech, A survey on tracing approaches in theory and practice. Technical Report 095.01/E, Fraunhofer IESE, 2002Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    A. van Lamsweerde, Reasoning about alternative requirements options, in Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications, ed. by A. Borgida, V.K. Chaudhri, P. Giorgini, E.S.K. Yu Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5600 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 380–397Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    A. Van Lamsweerde, R. Darimont, E. Letier, Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(11), 908–926 (1998). ISSN 0098-5589Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    H. Wache, P. Groot, H. Stuckenschmidt, Scalable instance retrieval for the semantic web by approximation, in Proceedings of WISE-2005 Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, 2005Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    S. Walderhaug, U. Johansen, E. Stav, J. Aagedal, Towards a generic solution for traceability in MDD, in ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2006 Proceedings, Bilbao, 2006Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    T. Walter, J. Ebert, Combining DSLs and ontologies using metamodel integration, in Domain-Specific Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5658 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 148–169Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    T. Walter, J. Ebert, Combining ontology-enriched domain-specific languages, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering (TWOMDE) at MoDELS, 2009Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    T. Walter, H. Schwarz, Y. Ren, Establishing a bridge from graph-based modeling languages to ontology languages, in Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Transforming and Weaving OWL Ontologies and MDE/MDA (TWOMDE 2010), 2010Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    T. Walter, F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, OntoDSL: An ontology-based framework for domain-specific languages, in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 12th International Conference, MODELS 2009, vol. 5795 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 408–422Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    T. Walter, F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, J. Ebert, Joint language and domain engineering, in Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications, ECMFA 2010, Paris. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6138 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    H. Wang, Y. Li, J. Sun, H. Zhang, J. Pan, A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification, in 1st Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE’05), 2005Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    C.A. Welty, D.A. Ferrucci, What’s in an instance. Technical Report 94/18, RPI Computer Science Department, NY, 1994Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    C. Wende, S. Zivkovic, U. Aßmann, H. Kühn, Feature-based customisation of MDSD tool environments. Technical Report TUD-FI10-05-Juli 2010, Technische Universität Dresden, July 2010Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    R. Wieringa, An introduction to requirements traceability. Technical Report IR-389, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, 1995Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    S. Winkler, J. von Pilgrim, A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software Syst. Model. 9(4), 529–565 (2010). doi:10.1007/s10270-009-0141-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    A. Winter, Referenz-metaschema für visuelle modellierungssprachen. DUV Informatik. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, 2000Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    R. Witte, Y. Zhang, J. Rilling, Empowering software maintainers with semantic web technologies, in Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESCW 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4519, 2007, pp. 37–52. doi:0.1007/978-3-540-72667-8_5Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    G.M. Wyner, J. Lee, Defining specialization for process models, in Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, chapter 5 (MIT, Cambridge, 2003), pp. 131–174Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    A. Yie, D. Wagelaar, Advanced traceability with ATL, in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (2009)Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    R. Yuan, J.Z. Pan, Y. Zhao, Soundness Preserving Approximation for TBox Reasoning. In Proc. of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI2010), 2010Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Y. Zhao, J.Z. Pan, Y. Ren, Implementing and evaluating a rule-based approach to querying regular el+ ontologies, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS2009), 2009Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    S. Zivkovic, C. Wende, A. Bartho, B. Gregorcic, D2.3—initial prototype of ontology-driven software process guidance system. Project Deliverable ICT216691/TUD/WP2-D3/D/PU/b1.00, MOST Project, 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
    • 1
  • Gerd Gröner
    • 2
  • Tobias Walter
    • 2
  • Andreas Friesen
    • 3
  • Tirdad Rahmani
    • 3
  • Jens Lemcke
    • 3
  • Hannes Schwarz
    • 2
  • Krzysztof Miksa
    • 4
  • Christian Wende
    • 5
  • Uwe Aßmann
    • 6
  1. 1.FUMEC UniversityMinas GeraisBrazil
  2. 2.University of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  3. 3.SAP ResearchKarlsruheGermany
  4. 4.COMARCH S.A.Krak#x00F3;wGermany
  5. 5.DevBoost GmbHBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Technical University DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations