Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax

Information systems are situated in and are representations of some business or organizational domain. Hence, understanding the application domain is critical to the success of information systems development. To support domain understanding, the application domain is represented in conceptual models. The correctness of conceptual models can affect the development outcome and prevent costly rework during later development stages. This paper proposes a method to restrict the syntax of a modeling language to ensure that only possible configurations of a domain can be modeled, thus increasing the likelihood of creating correct domain models. The proposed method, based on domain ontologies, captures relationships among domain elements via constraints on the language metamodel, thus restricting the set of statements about the domain that can be generated with the language. In effect, this method creates domain specific modeling languages from more generic ones. The method is demonstrated using the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Specifically, it is applied to the subset of UML dealing with object behavior and its applicability is demonstrated on a specific modeling example.

[1]  Yair Wand,et al.  A Proposal for a Formal Model of Objects , 1989, Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications.

[2]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning on UML class diagrams , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Stuart C. Shapiro Review of Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations by John F. Sowa. Brooks/Cole 2000. , 2001 .

[4]  Hassan Gomaa,et al.  An object-oriented domain analysis and modeling method for software reuse , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Towards a Formalization of the Unified Modeling Language , 1997, ECOOP.

[6]  Joerg Magnus Evermann,et al.  Using design languages for conceptual modelling : the UML case , 2003 .

[7]  Chris Welty,et al.  FOIS introduction: Ontology---towards a new synthesis , 2001, FOIS.

[8]  Michael Gruninger,et al.  Ontology Applications and Design - Introduction. , 2002 .

[9]  Ray Offen Domain Understanding is the Key to Successful System Development , 2002, Requirements Engineering.

[10]  Barry Smith,et al.  FOIS introduction: Ontology---towards a new synthesis , 2001, FOIS.

[11]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  ARIS - Business Process Modeling , 1998 .

[13]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Information systems development through social structures , 2002, SEKE '02.

[14]  Elisabetta Morandin,et al.  A reuse-based software process based on domain analysis and OO framework , 1998, Proceedings. 24th EUROMICRO Conference (Cat. No.98EX204).

[15]  Sophie Cockcroft,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of Health Models: Some Early Findings , 2003, PACIS.

[16]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[17]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  The UML as a formal modeling notation , 1998, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[18]  Kazunori Matsumoto,et al.  A three-view model for developing object-oriented frameworks , 2001, Proceedings 39th International Conference and Exhibition on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. TOOLS 39.

[19]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using objects for systems analysis , 1997, CACM.

[20]  M. Morisio,et al.  Extending UML to support domain analysis , 2000, Proceedings ASE 2000. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering.

[21]  Michael Gruninger,et al.  ONTOLOGY Applications and Design , 2002 .

[22]  Andrew C. Gemino Empirical comparisons of system analysis modeling techniques , 1999 .

[23]  Ron Weber,et al.  Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies: principles, methods and applications , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[25]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[26]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling , 1999, TODS.

[27]  Amnon Naamad,et al.  The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts , 1996, TSEM.

[28]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation , 2000, Inf. Syst..

[29]  Neil Iscoe,et al.  Domain modeling for software engineering , 1991, [1991 Proceedings] 13th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[30]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Meta-Modelling Semantics of UML , 2014, Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems.

[31]  Ilka Philippow,et al.  Systematic definition of reusable architectures , 2001, Proceedings. Eighth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop On the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems-ECBS 2001.

[32]  Michael Jackson,et al.  The World and the Machine , 1995, 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[33]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  The State of the Art in Ontology Design: A Survey and Comparative Review , 1997, AI Mag..

[34]  T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[35]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[36]  K. D. Joshi,et al.  A collaborative approach to ontology design , 2002, CACM.

[37]  Ron Weber,et al.  Optional Properties Versus Subtyping in Conceptual Modeling: A Theory and Empirical Test , 1996, ICIS.

[38]  Anneke Kleppe,et al.  The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML , 1998 .

[39]  Dennis Shasha,et al.  Using a relational system on Wall Street: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the ideal , 1989, CACM.

[40]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Understanding and Controlling Software Costs , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[41]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations , 2000 .

[42]  G. Arango Domain analysis: from art form to engineering discipline , 1989, IWSSD '89.

[43]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs , 2001, ER.

[44]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Systems, Views and Models of UML , 2014, UML Workshop.

[45]  A. D. Ritchie The Dictionary of Philosophy , 1945, Nature.

[46]  Sholom Cohen,et al.  Object-oriented technology and domain analysis , 1998, Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse (Cat. No.98TB100203).

[47]  Michel Patry,et al.  An Evaluation of Inter-Organizational Workflow Modeling Formalisms , 2002 .

[48]  Andy Evans,et al.  Core Meta-Modelling Semantics of UML: The pUML Approach , 1999, UML.

[49]  Tony Clark,et al.  Foundations of the unified modeling language , 1997, FME 1997.

[50]  Andy Evans,et al.  Rigorous Development in UML , 1999, FASE.

[51]  Laurian M. Chirica,et al.  The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, SIGF.

[52]  Paul Roe Distributed XML Objects , 2003, JMLC.

[53]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  The UML as a formal modeling notation , 1998, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[54]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  An Ontological Evaluation of the OML Metamodel , 2000, ISCO.

[55]  Andrea Valerio,et al.  Exploiting enterprise knowledge through domain analysis and frameworks: an experimental work , 2000, Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[56]  David Harel,et al.  On visual formalisms , 1988, CACM.

[57]  Yanchun Zhang,et al.  An analytical evaluation of NIAM'S grammar for conceptual schema diagrams , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[58]  Michael Haupt,et al.  The Convergence of AOP and Active Databases: Towards Reactive Middleware , 2003, GPCE.

[59]  David Harel,et al.  Executable object modeling with statecharts , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[60]  Heinrich Hußmann,et al.  Modular architecture for a toolset supporting OCL , 2000, Sci. Comput. Program..

[61]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .