Formalizing Meta Models with FDMM: The ADOxx Case

  • Hans-Georg Fill
  • Timothy Redmond
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 141)

Abstract

This paper contains an extended and improved version of the FDMM formalism presented at ICEIS’2012. FDMM is a formalism to describe how meta models and models are defined in the ADOxx approach as used in the Open Models Initiative. It is based on set theory and first order logic statements. In this way, an exact description of ADOxx meta models and corresponding models can be provided. In the paper at hand we extend the description of the formalism by illustrating how the mathematical statements can be used to support the implementation on the ADOxx platform. For this purpose we show how the FDMM constructs are mapped to statements in the ADOxx Library Language (ALL). As an example of the approach, the formalism and the mapping to ALL are applied to a modeling language from the area of risk management.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling Meta modeling Domain-specific modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Parts of the work on this paper have been funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) in the course of an Erwin-Schrödinger fellowship project number J3028-N23.

References

  1. 1.
    Kaschek, R.: On the evolution of conceptual modeling. In: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 08181 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karagiannis, D., Fill, H.G., Höfferer, P., Nemetz, M.: Metamodeling: Some application areas in information systems. In: Kaschek, R., Kop, C., Steinberger, C., Fliedl, G. (eds.) UNISCON 2008. LNBIP, vol. 5, pp. 175–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling - a research agenda. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(4), 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.): Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koch, S., Strecker, S., Frank, U.: Conceptual Modelling as a New Entry in the Bazaar: The Open Model Approach. In: Damiani, E., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) Open Source Systems. IFIP, vol. 203, pp. 9–20. Springer, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karagiannis, D., Grossmann, W., Hoefferer, P.: Open model initiative - a feasibility study. http://cms.dke.univie.ac.at/uploads/media/Open_Models_Feasibility_Study_SEPT_2008.pdf (2008). Accessed 04 April 2010
  7. 7.
    Hinkelmann, K., Nikles, S., Wache, H., Wolff, D.: An enterprise architecture framework to organize model repositories. In: Woitsch, R., Micsik, A. (eds.) OKM Open Knowledge Models, Workshop W3 at EKAW 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kern, H., Hummel, A., Kuehne, S.: Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In: The 11th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, Portland, USA. http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM11/Papers/kern.pdf (2011). Accessed 05 Jan 2012
  9. 9.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: What’s the semantics of “semantics”? IEEE Comput. 37(10), 64–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Full version available at: http://www.dke.univie.ac.at/mmp/FullVersion\_MMP\_DexaECWeb2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuehn, H.: The ADOxx Metamodelling Platform. In: Workshop on Methods as Plug-Ins for Meta-Modelling. Klagenfurt, Austria http://www.openmodel.at/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7516b7c5-a525-4d92-929e-6c11e5da9d39&groupId=10122 (2010)
  12. 12.
    Bork, D., Sinz, E.: Design of a SOM Business Process Modelling Tool based on the ADOxx meta-modelling Platform. In: De Lara, J., Varro, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Graph-Based Tools, EASST (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fill, H.G., Gericke, A., Karagiannis, D., Winter, R.: Modellierung fuer Integrated Enterprise Balancing (German: Modeling for Integrated Enterprise Balancing). Wirtschaftsinformatik 06, 419–429 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwab, M., Karagiannis, D., Bergmayr, A.: i* on ADOxx(R): A Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 4th International i* Workshop - iStar10 - CAiSE Workshop Proceedings, pp. 92–97. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nemetz, M.: A meta-model for intellectual capital reporting. In: Reimer, U., Karagiannis, D. (eds.) PAKM 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4333, pp. 213–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hofer, S.: Instances over algorithms: A different approach to business process modeling. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 25–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braun, C., Winter, R.: A comprehensive enterprise architecture metamodel and its implementation using a metamodeling platform. In: Desel, J., Frank, U. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, pp. 64–79. Gesellschaft fuer Informatik, Bonn (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demirkan, H., Kauffman, R.J., Vayghan, J.A., Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Maglio, P.: Service-oriented technology and management: Perspectives on research and practice for the coming decade. Electron. Comm. Res. Appl. 7(4), 356–376 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff - part i: The basic stuff. Technical Report MCS00-16, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 22 August 2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sprinkle, J., Rumpe, B., Vangheluwe, H., Karsai, G.: Metamodelling - state of the art and research challenges. In: Giese, H., Karsai, G., Lee, E., Rumpe, B., Schätz, B. (eds.) MBEERTS. LNCS, vol. 6100, pp. 57–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harmon, P.: The BPTrends 2010 BPM Software Tools Report on BOC’s Adonis Version 4.0 http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/2010%20BPM%20Tools%20Report-BOCph.pdf (2010). Accessed 10 Oct 2011
  22. 22.
    Junginger, S., Kuehn, H., Strobl, R., Karagiannis, D.: Ein Geschaeftsprozessmanagement-Werkzeug der naechsten Generation - ADONIS: Konzeption und Anwendungen (German: ADONIS: A next generation business process management tool - Concepts and Applications). Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5), 392–401 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fill, H.G.: Visualisation for Semantic Information Systems. Gabler, Wiesbaden (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faisst, U., Buhl, H.: Integrated Enterprise Balancing mit integrierten Ertrags- und Risikodatenbanken (German: Integrated Enterprise Balancing with integrated Return and Risk Databases). Wirtschaftsinformatik 47(6), 403–412 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gericke, A., Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Winter, R.: Situational Method Engineering for Governance. Risk and Compliance Information Systems. In: DESRIST. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karagiannis, D., Junginger, S., Strobl, R.: Introduction to Business Process Management Systems Concepts. In: Scholz-Reiter, B., Stickel, E. (eds.) Business Process Modelling, pp. 81–106. Springer, Berlin (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fill, H.G., Redmond, T., Karagiannis, D.: FDMM: A Formalism for Describing ADOxx Meta Models and Models. In: Maciaszek, L., Cuzzocrea, A., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) Proceedings of ICEIS 2012, Wroclaw, Poland, vol 3, pp. 133–144. (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group: Omg meta object facility (mof) core specification version 2.4.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.1/PDF/ (2011)
  29. 29.
    McNeill, K.: Metamodeling with EMF: Generating concrete, reusable Java snippets. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-eclipse-emfmetamodel/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX44&S_CMP=EDU (2008)
  30. 30.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: a DSL for Metamodel Specification. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omg, O.M.G.: Unified modeling language (uml) specification: Infrastructure version 2.0. Technical report. http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/04-10-14.pdf (2004). Accessed 12 Mar 2006
  32. 32.
    Poernomo, I.: The Meta-Object Facility Typed. In: SAC’06, Dijon, France, pp. 1845–1849. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Favre, L.M.: Formalization of MOF-Based Metamodels. In: Favre, L.M. (ed.) Model Driven Architecture for Reverse Engineering Technologies. Information Resources Management Association (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG: Object constraint language specification version 2.2. Technical report. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.2 (2010). Accessed 11 Jan 2012
  35. 35.
    Baader, F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Georg Fill
    • 1
  • Timothy Redmond
    • 2
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Knowledge EngineeringUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics ResearchStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations