Visual Syntax of UML Class and Package Diagram Constructs as an Ontology

Diagrams are often studied as visual languages with an abstract and a concrete syntax (concrete syntax is often referred to as visual syntax), where the latter contains the visual representations of the concepts in the former. A formal specification of the concrete syntax is useful in diagram processing applications as well as in achieving unambiguous understanding of diagrams. Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a commonly used modeling language to represent software models using its diagrams. Class and package diagrams are two diagrams of UML. The motivation for this work is twofold; UML lacks a formal visual syntax specification and ontologies are under-explored for visual syntax specifications. The work in this paper, therefore, explores using ontologies for visual syntax specifications by specifying the visual syntax of a set of UML class and package diagram constructs as an ontology in the Web ontology language, OWL. The reasoning features of the ontology reasoners are then used to verify the visual syntax specification. Besides formally encoding the visual syntax of numerous UML constructs, the work also demonstrates the general value of using OWL for visual syntax specifications.

[1]  Volker Haarslev Using Description Logic for Reasoning about Diagrammatical Notations , 1996, Description Logics.

[2]  Mark Minas Syntax Definition with Graphs , 2006, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Genny Tortora,et al.  A framework of syntactic models for the implementation of visual languages , 1997, Proceedings. 1997 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (Cat. No.97TB100180).

[4]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Using ontologies with UML class-based modeling: The TwoUse approach , 2010, Data Knowl. Eng..

[5]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi , 2012, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[6]  Yvan Labiche,et al.  Diagram definition: a case study with the UML class diagram , 2011, MODELS'11.

[7]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UMLFamily of Diagrams , 2009, SLE.

[8]  Frank Drewes,et al.  Picking Knots from Trees - The Syntactic Structure of Celtic Knotwork , 2000, Diagrams.

[9]  R. Volz,et al.  Benchmarking OWL Reasoners , 2007 .

[10]  Christel Kemke,et al.  Modeling Shapes and Graphics Concepts in an Ontology , 2011, SHAPES.

[11]  Faizan Javed,et al.  A Grammar-Based Approach to Class Diagram Validation , 2005 .

[12]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language , 2003, J. Web Semant..

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Spatial Reasoning with Topological Information , 1998, Spatial Cognition.

[14]  Boris Motik,et al.  Structured objects in owl: representation and reasoning , 2008, WWW.

[15]  Bernardo Cuenca Grau,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics , 2009 .

[16]  W. O. Berry,et al.  Preface , 1988, Brain Research Bulletin.

[17]  Volker Haarslev Formal semantics of visual languages using spatial reasoning , 1995, Proceedings of Symposium on Visual Languages.

[18]  Bernd Meyer,et al.  Visual Language Theory , 2012, Springer New York.