Leveraging Model-Based Tool Integration by Conceptual Modeling Techniques

In the context of model-based tool integration, model transformation languages are the first choice for realizing model exchange between heterogenous tools. However, the lack of a conceptual view on the integration problem and appropriate reuse mechanisms for already existing integration knowledge forces the developer to define model transformation code again and again for certain recurring integration problems in an implementation-oriented manner resulting in low productivity and maintainability of integration solutions. In this chapter, we summarize our work on a framework for model-based tool integration which is based on well-established conceptual modeling techniques. It allows to design integration models on a conceptual level in terms of UML component diagrams. Not only the design-time is supported by conceptual models, but also the runtime, i.e., the execution of integration models, is represented by conceptual models in terms of Coloured Petri Nets. Furthermore, we show how reusable integration components for resolving structural metamodel heterogeneities, which are one of the most frequently recurring integration problems, can be implemented within our framework.

[1]  Jean-Michel Bruel,et al.  Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference , 2006 .

[2]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  Reusable Idioms and Patterns in Graph Transformation Languages , 2005, GraBaTs.

[3]  Douglas C. Schmidt,et al.  Guest Editor's Introduction: Model-Driven Engineering , 2006, Computer.

[4]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Termination Analysis of Model Transformations by Petri Nets , 2006, ICGT.

[6]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  Technological Spaces: An Initial Appraisal , 2002 .

[7]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Ontologies and the semantic web , 2008, CACM.

[8]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[9]  Manuel Wimmer,et al.  A semi-automatic approach for bridging DSMLs with UML , 2009, Int. J. Web Inf. Syst..

[10]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  AMW: a generic model weaver , 2005 .

[11]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Model management , 1994 .

[12]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Lifting metamodels to ontologies: a step to the semantic integration of modeling languages , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[13]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: a context-based approach , 1996, The VLDB Journal.

[14]  Frédéric Jouault,et al.  Transforming Models with ATL , 2005, MoDELS.

[15]  Manuel Wimmer From mining to mapping and roundtrip transformations: a systematic approach to model-based tool integration , 2010, DISDBIS.

[16]  T. Reiter,et al.  Towards a semantic infrastructure supporting model-based tool integration , 2006, GaMMa '06.

[17]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  A Framework for Building Mapping Operators Resolving Structural Heterogeneities , 2008, UNISCON.

[18]  Juan de Lara,et al.  Translating Model Simulators to Analysis Models , 2008, FASE.

[19]  Manuel Wimmer,et al.  On the Integration of Web Modeling Languages : Preliminary Results and Future Challenges , 2007 .

[20]  Kevin Lano,et al.  Slicing of UML models using model transformations , 2010, MODELS'10.

[21]  Manuel Wimmer,et al.  On the Integration of Web Modeling Languages , 2007, MDWE.

[22]  Philip A. Bernstein,et al.  Model management 2.0: manipulating richer mappings , 2007, SIGMOD '07.

[23]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[24]  Kurt Jensen,et al.  Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. Vol. 2, Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[25]  Lu Zhang,et al.  Applying OO Metrics to Assess UML Meta-models , 2004, UML.

[26]  M. Wimmer,et al.  Right or Wrong ? – Verification of Model Transformations using Colored Petri Nets , 2009 .

[27]  Antonio Vallecillo,et al.  MDWEnet: A Practical Approach to Achieving Interoperability of Model-Driven Web Engineering Methods , 2007, MDWE.

[28]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  A language to specify mappings between ontologies , 2005, SITIS.

[29]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Lost in Translation? Transformation Nets to the Rescue! , 2009, UNISCON.

[30]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[31]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Matching Metamodels with Semantic Systems - An Experience Report , 2007, BTW Workshops.

[32]  Michelle L. Crane,et al.  UML vs. classical vs. rhapsody statecharts: not all models are created equal , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[33]  Boris Motik,et al.  MAFRA - A MApping FRAmework for Distributed Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[34]  Thomas Reiter,et al.  Towards a runtime model based on colored Petri-nets for the execution of model transformations , 2007 .

[35]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Bidirectional model transformations in QVT: semantic issues and open questions , 2007, MODELS'07.

[36]  Stefano Spaccapietra Journal on Data Semantics IV , 2005, Journal on Data Semantics IV.

[37]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Modelling Recursive Calls with UML State Diagrams , 2003, FASE.

[38]  Laurence Tratt,et al.  Model transformations and tool integration , 2005, Software & Systems Modeling.

[39]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  On Models and Ontologies - A Semantic Infrastructure Supporting Model Integration , 2006, Modellierung.

[40]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Generic and Meta-transformations for Model Transformation Engineering , 2004, UML.