Case Studies for Marrying Ontology and Software Technologies

  • Krzysztof Miksa
  • Pawel Sabina
  • Andreas Friesen
  • Tirdad Rahmani
  • Jens Lemcke
  • Christian Wende
  • Srdjan Zivkovic
  • Uwe Aßmann
  • Andreas Bartho


In this chapter, we conclude Part I with several industrial case studies for motivating consistency-preserving software development. Many of these case studies will be revisited in later chapters, in particular Chaps. 9 and 10. Many of the solutions are based on the scalable reasoning technologies to be introduced in Chap. 5. The rest of this chapter is organised as follows. Section. 4.1 shows which problems companies meet when they want to specify correct and consistent domain models of telecommunication device configurations. Another case study (Sect. 4.2) treats consistency preservation for behavioural models (process models). In business process refinement, the more concrete, refined processes have to conform to the abstract business processes the consultant specified. Showing this form of consistency of refinement is not easy for the process architect, as it turns out. Section 4.3 presents the problem of consistency of product lines, their correct modelling of their variant spaces and the consistent selection of their variants.


Business Process Task Type Object Management Group Development Task Ontology Technology 
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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 18.
    D. Batory, Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. Software Product Lines, 2005, pp. 7–20Google Scholar
  4. 39.
    F. Budinsky, S. Brodsky, E. Merks, Eclipse Modeling Framework (Pearson, New Jersey, 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 52.
    K. Czarnecki, C. Kim, Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. in International Workshop on Software Factories, Citeseer, 2005Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 69.
    J.J. Fleck, Overview of the Structure of the NGOSS Architecture. White paper (Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, May 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 70.
    D. Forum, DSM forum web page, 2010.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 84.
    G.M. Gwyner, J. Lee, Defining specialization for process models. Technical report, Boston University School of Management, 1995Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 165.
    K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F. Van Der Linden, Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques (Springer, Berlin, 2005). ISBN 978-3540243724zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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

  • Krzysztof Miksa
    • 1
  • Pawel Sabina
    • 1
  • Andreas Friesen
    • 2
  • Tirdad Rahmani
    • 2
  • Jens Lemcke
    • 2
  • Christian Wende
    • 3
  • Srdjan Zivkovic
    • 4
  • Uwe Aßmann
    • 5
  • Andreas Bartho
    • 5
  1. 1.COMARCH S.A.KrakówPoland
  2. 2.SAP ResearchKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.DevBoost GmbHBerlinGermany
  4. 4.BOC Information Systems GmbHViennaAustria
  5. 5.Technical University DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations