Semantic Model-driven Engineering

Transcription

1 Web Science & Technologies University of Koblenz Landau, Germany Semantic Model-driven Engineering with Gerd Gröner, Fernando Silva Parreiras, Tobias Walter

2 Who we are Prof. Dr. Staab Prof. Dr. Sure Semantic Web Dr. Janik Web Retrieval Dr. Sizov Interactive Web Dr. Scherp Multimedia Web Dr. Grzegorzek Software Web F. Silva Parreiras GESIS Prof. Sure EU NeOn DFG Multipla EU WeKnowIt EU X-Media EU Most EU WeGov BMBF CollabCloud HP Synth Docs EU WeGov EU kspace EU ASG EU Net2 EU Tagora EU acemedia 2of 84

3 Two Worlds of Models MDA / MDE Description Logics / Ontologies Ingredients Models: representing complementary views of a system Structural Behavioral Metamodeling: Linguistic instantiation of syntactic class descriptions Transformations: Towards target platform Adding refinements Ingredients Ontologies: representing complementary views of a system Structural (Behavioral) Metamodeling: Ontological instantiation of logical class descriptions Transformations: Between knowledge bases/ontologies 3of 84

4 Model-driven Engineering Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels M3 Framework Developer specifies Metamodeling Language M2 DSL Designer specifies uses DSL Metamodel uses M1 DSL User builds Domain Model 4of 84

5 Model-driven Engineering Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels Refinements along model specification From business developer to software developer 5of 84

6 Model-driven Engineering Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along model specification From business developer to software developer Refinements along metamodeling levels Refinements along platform specification For Ontology Translations UML UML JAVA PIM PSM Code Classical MDA 6of 84

7 Model-driven Engineering Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels Refinements along model specification From business developer to software developer Refinements along platform specification For Ontology Translations Refinements along time Metamodel evolution Suggesting changes to transformations by DL reasoning Ontology API Co-evolution 7of 84

8 Agenda Description Logics Reasoning by Example Model-driven engineering with OWL Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels [Models 2009, ECMFA 2010] Refinements along model specification [DL 2009, EKAW 2010] From business developer to software developer Refinements along platform specification [ER 2008] For Ontology Translations Refinements along time Metamodel evolution [ISWC2010] Suggesting changes to transformations by DL reasoning Ontology API Generation/Co-evolution[ICSC 2009] 8of 84

9 Description Logics Description Logics (DLs) are logics designed to represent and reason on structured knowledge The domain of interest is structured into (TBox): concepts, which correspond to classes, and denote sets of individuals roles, which correspond to associations, and denote binary relations on individuals The knowledge is asserted through so-called assertions (ABox) They provide formal semantics DLs provide the foundations for standard ontology languages, like OWL2 BUT: Why should a software engineer care? 9of 84

10 Model-driven Software Development using DL General Problems from Knowledge Representation (KR) perspective Representational View Lack of formal semantics in modeling languages metamodel to check syntax but not semantics of a model If there is a formal semantics, modeling languages are often too expressive to have sound and complete, full-fledged, general purpose reasoner Operational View Reasoning Tasks are not well automated Transformations from Models to Description Logics as an asset, not as a silver bullet 10 of 84

11 Example: Satisfiability Checking in the MDE Process Reasoning on UML class diagrams OWL [Calvanese et al, AIJ 2005] Translation UML UML JAVA PIM PSM Code Classical MDA 11 of 84

12 Example: Satisfiability Checking UserAccount Unsatisfiable Owns WebPortalAccount 0..n Uses 1..n User {complete, disjoint} Researcher Every WebPortalAccount is used by at most one Researcher if Researcher is empty, User and Student will be redundant Student Researcher is disjoint from Student 12 of 84

13 Example: Satisfiability Checking UserAccount Unsatisfiable Owns 0..n 1 User Uses {complete, disjoint} WebPortalAccount n Researcher Student Advantage for software engineering: Models with provably higher quality 13 of 84

14 Ontology Driven Software Development (ODSD) Using ontologies to formalize models Modeling relationships between artifacts Inferring relationships between artifacts, e.g. traceability relationships Ensuring semantic correctness by constraint validation Guiding the development by reasoning (reasoning in process/model development) 14 of 84

15 Agenda Description Logics Reasoning by Example Model-driven engineering (with OWL) Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels [Models 2009, ECMFA 2010] Refinements along model specification [DL 2009, EKAW 2010] From business developer to software developer Refinements along platform specification [ER 2008] For Ontology Translations Refinements along time Metamodel evolution [ISWC2010] Suggesting changes to transformations by DL reasoning Ontology API Generation/Co-evolution[ICSC 2009] 15 of 84

16 A note on Software Languages as a field of research Grammarware Modelware Ruby Java OCL UML MOF Scala C# C Lisp Haskell Fortran Software Language Engineering Ecore ER diagrams BPMN BPEL Petrinets F-Logic RIF OWL-DL OntoWare 16 of 84

17 Objectives Context Software Languages Ontology Languages Language Bridges Transforming Software Languages to OWL Integrating Software Languages with OWL Services Reasoning Services Querying Services 17 of 84

18 MDE/MDA is based on Metamodeling Model hierarchy Ecore Metametamodel instanceof Language Designer Language User Ecore based Metamodel instanceof instanceof Model Model representationof representationof Real World Systems 18 of 84

19 Ecore vs. UML MOF simplifies UML Class Diagrams No n-ary associations No association classes Used for metamodeling Ecore: two aspects implements MOF as part of Eclipse Specification language like MOF (minus some bugs) 19 of 84

20 Example for 4-layered architecture Example: Process modeling Ecore Metametamodel conformsto Language Designer Ecore based Metamodel conformsto Model Language User 20 of 84

21 Example: Process Model Model (Activity Diagram) designed by language user Language User [order rejected] Receive Order [order accepted] Fill Order Ship Order Close Order Send Invoice Make Payment Accept Payment Invoice 21 of 84

22 Example: Metamodel for Process Models M2 metamodel (Activity Diagram) Language Designer conforms to Ecore M3 metametamodel visualized using concrete syntax of UML class diagrams 22 of 84

23 Example: Metamodel for Process Models (2) Ecore-based metamodel (Activity Diagram) conforms to Ecore M3 metametamodel visualized using textual concrete syntax abstract class ActivityNode { reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } class ObjectNode extends ActivityNode { } class Action extends ActivityNode { attribute name : String; } Language Designer abstract class ControlNode extends ActivityNode { } class Initial extends ControlNode { } class Final extends ControlNode { } class Fork extends ControlNode { } class Join extends ControlNode { } class Merge extends ControlNode { } class Decision extends ControlNode { } abstract class ActivityEdge { reference source [1-1] : ActivityNode; reference target [1-1] : ActivityNode; } class ObjectFlow extends ActivityEdge { } class ControlFlow extends ActivityEdge 23 { of 84 }

24 Example: Metametamodel for Process Models Ecore M3 metametamodel 24 of 84

25 Exercise Take 10 minutes Write down a metamodel for Java method declarations (or for your other favorite language) Suggestion: write down 3 example method declarations first 25 of 84

26 Exercise 2 Take 5 minutes Write down a metametamodel i.e. a metamodel language for the metamodel describing Java method declarations 26 of 84

27 General Scheme for Metametamodel based Transformations 27 of 84

28 So far Metamodels as abstract grammar for our models Abstract grammar defines what is related to what Undefined: word order Undefined: semantics Undefined: visual syntax (e.g. textual or diagrammatic syntax) Now: ontologies are models, too! 28 of 84

29 Ontologies as Target Software Models OWL2 Metamodel (excerpt) 29 of 84

30 Ontologies as Target Software Models Linguistic instantiation of the OWL2 metamodel in OWL2 Functional Style Syntax (axiom-based) SubClassOf(ActivityEdge owl:thing) SubClassOf(ActivityNode owl:thing) ObjectPropertyDomain(to ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(to ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyDomain(outgoing ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyRange(outgoing ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyDomain(from ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(from ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyDomain(incoming ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyRange(incoming ActivityEdge) ClassAssertion(action1 Action) 30 of 84

31 Ontologies as Target Software Models OWL2 Manchester Style Syntax (frame-based) requires a different metamodel Class: ActivityEdge SubClassOf: owl:thing Class: ActivityNode SubClassOf: owl:thing ObjectProperty: to Domain: ActivityEdge Range: ActivityNode ObjectProperty: outgoing Domain: ActivityNode Range: ActivityEdge ObjectProperty: from Domain: ActivityEdge Range: ActivityNode ObjectProperty: incoming Domain: ActivityNode Range: ActivityEdge Individual: action1 Types: Action 31 of 84

32 Translating ontology syntaxes OWL2 Functional Syntax metamodel define mapping OWL2 Manchester Syntax metamodel SubClassOf(ActivityEdge owl:thing) SubClassOf(ActivityNode owl:thing) ObjectPropertyDomain(to ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(to ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyDomain(outgoing ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyRange(outgoing ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyDomain(from ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(from ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyDomain(incoming ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyRange(incoming ActivityEdge) ClassAssertion(action1 Action) derive translation Class: ActivityEdge SubClassOf: owl:thing Class: ActivityNode SubClassOf: owl:thing ObjectProperty: to Domain: ActivityEdge Range: ActivityNode ObjectProperty: outgoing Domain: ActivityNode Range: ActivityEdge ObjectProperty: from Domain: ActivityEdge Range: ActivityNode ObjectProperty: incoming Domain: ActivityNode Range: ActivityEdge Individual: action1 32 of 84 Types: Action

33 Comparing Ecore with OWL Many similar constructs Ecore package class instance and literals reference, attribute data types enumeration multiplicity Opposite reference Reasoners use logic-based language Representation of software models in a logic-based language We need bridges! OWL ontology class individual and literals object, data property data types enumeration cardinality Inverse object properties 33 of 84

34 Software Language Bridges 2 kinds of Language Bridges M3 Transformation bridge M3 Integration bridge Just one (of many) possible pictures 34 of 84

35 M3 Transformation Bridge Transformation of Ecore Technical Space with Ontology Language OWL2 Transformation of Ecore-based Metamodels Transformation of conforming Models Transformation Definition Transformation Use 35 of 84

36 M3 Transformation Bridge OWLizer Transforming Software Metamodels to Ontology TBox Transforming Software Models to Ontology ABox Language Designer OWLizing Language User 36 of 84 Just one (of many) possible pictures

37 Example: Ecore to OWL - OWLizer Language Designer Language User Definition of Transformation Bridge Model transformation rules according to mappings of constructs similar in Ecore and OWL2 37 of 84

38 Example: Ecore to OWL - OWLizer SubClassOf(ActivityEdge owl:thing) SubClassOf(ActivityNode owl:thing) use of transformation bridge Language Designer Language User use of transformation bridge ObjectPropertyDomain(to ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(to ActivityNode) ObjectPropertyDomain(from ActivityEdge) ObjectPropertyRange(from ActivityNode)... ClassAssertion(A Action) ClassAssertion(B Action) ClassAssertion(C Action) ClassAssertion(e1 ObjectFlow) ClassAssertion(e2 ObjectFlow) ObjectPropertyAssertion(to e1 B) ObjectPropertyAssertion(from e1 A) of 84

39 Video Transforming Ecore Models and Metamodels into OWL using the OWLizer.mp4 39 of 84

40 Some observations Transforming some class-like structures to OWL is sort of trivial But: A metamodel-based approach saves work if multiple output formats are expected Reasoning on the output/input structures may be helpful The demonstrations neglect (so far) the distinction between: Ecore: Linguistic instantiation The way how things may be phrased in a sentence is constrained OWL: Semantic instantiation The way how things are factually related in the world is constrained 40 of 84

41 How it works: Extending Software Metamodels Integration of Ecore Technical Space with Ontology Language OWL2 Integration of abstract Syntax OWL2 metamodel Create Ecore-based + Metametamodel metamodels with integrated Integration of concrete OWL2 Syntax axioms OWL2 concrete OWL2 syntax expressions + Ecore concrete Syntax 41 of 84

42 How it works: Integration of abstract Syntax Metamodel Integration by using Integration Operations Merge of concepts Relation of concepts by Specialization Relationship Association 42 of 84

43 How it works: Ecore Metametamodel + OWL2 Metamodel Integration of abstract Syntax Result: Integrated Metametamodel 43 of 84

44 How it works: Ecore concrete syntax Textual Concrete Syntax for Coding Metamodels Simple Syntax, similar to Java Grammar (concrete Syntax): class ::= ["abstract"] "class" name [supertypes] "{" features "}";... feature ::= attribute reference;... attribute ::= "attribute" name multiplicity ":" typeref ";";... reference ::= "reference" name multiplicity [iscontainer] ": typeref ["oppositeof" name] ";"; of 84

45 How it works: Example of Ecore Textual Concrete Syntax (textual) Activity Diagram Metamodel abstract class ActivityNode { reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } class ObjectNode extends ActivityNode { } class Action extends ActivityNode { attribute name : String; } abstract class ControlNode extends ActivityNode { } class Initial extends ControlNode { } class Final extends ControlNode { } class Fork extends ControlNode { } class Join extends ControlNode { } class Merge extends ControlNode { } class Decision extends ControlNode { } abstract class ActivityEdge { reference source [1-1] : ActivityNode; reference target [1-1] : ActivityNode; } class ObjectFlow extends ActivityEdge { } class ControlFlow extends ActivityEdge { } 45 of 84

46 How it works: Extension of textual concrete syntax New non-terminals: classaxioms: produces a list of OWL Class Axioms objectpropertyaxioms: produces a list of OWL Object Property Axioms datapropertyaxioms: produces a list of OWL Data Property Axioms class ::= ["abstract"] "class" name [supertypes] [classaxioms] "{" features "}"; classaxioms ::= ClassAxiom { "," ClassAxiom}; reference ::= "reference" name multiplicity iscontainer ":" typeref "oppositeof name [objectpropertyaxioms] ";"; objectpropertyaxioms ::= ObjectPropertyAxiom { "," ObjectPropertyAxiom}; attribute ::= "attribute" name multiplicity ":" typeref [datapropertyaxioms] ";"; datapropertyaxioms ::= DataPropertyAxiom { "," DataPropertyAxiom}; 46 of 84

47 How it works: Example Extended Metamodel of Activity Diagram (excerpt) class ActivityNode equivalentwith restrictionon edge with some Final{ reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } transitive reference edge [0-*] : ActivityNode ischain(outgoing, target);... class Initial extends ControlNode, subclassof restrictionon outgoing with some (restrictionon with some (Action or ControlNode)) { } 47 of 84

48 Transforming software model to OWL Why? Its the reasoning, stupid! 48 of 84

49 Video extending ecore models with owl annotations.mp4 49 of 84

50 Reasoning Services 50 of 84

51 Consistency Checking Name Consistency Checking Signature boolean consistency (Ontology O) Description Pattern Input Output Checks if the given ontology O is consistent, i.e. if there exists a model (a model-theoretic instance) for O. If ontology O is consistent, then return true. Otherwise return false. b = consistency (O) An Ontology O b = true iff O is consistent, b = false otherwise 51 of 84

52 Consistency Checking in Software Modeling Accomplished Service Ensures that a Model does not contain any contradictory facts with regard to its Language Metamodel Requirements for Language Designers Possibility to define Constraints and Restrictions Define Axioms Benefits for Language User Sound Models 52 of 84

53 Consistency Checking (be aware of OWA!) M2 Metamodel class ActivityNode equivalentwith restrictionon edge with some Final{ reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } transitive reference edge [0-*] : ActivityNode ischain(outgoing, target); M1 Model Inconsistency: Disallowed Edge to Initial Action Receive Order 53 of 84

54 Satisfiability Checking Name Satisfiability checking Signature Set<Concept> GetUnsatisfiable (Ontology O) Description Pattern Input Output Find all unsatisfiable concepts in given ontology O. A concept in an ontology is unsatisfiable if it is an empty set. Return NULL if there is not any unsatisfiable concept. b = GetUnsatisfiable (O) An Ontology O b = NULL iff there is no unsatisfiable concept b = a set of unsatisfiable concepts otherwise 54 of 84

55 Satisfiability Checking in Software Modeling Accomplished Service Finds unsatisfiable classes in a metamodel Benefits for Language Designers Higher quality metamodels, where all classes can be instantiated Benefits for Language Users Less inconsistencies in models (because instances of unsatisfiable classes lead to inconsistencies) 55 of 84

56 Satisfiability Checking (Example) M2 Metamodel class ActivityNode equivalentwith restrictionon edge with some Final{ reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } transitive reference edge [0-*] : ActivityNode ischain(outgoing, target); class Final extends ControlNode subclassof (restrictionon edge with some ActivityNode) and not(restrictionon edge with some ActivityNode) { } Unsatisfiable Class: two contradictory restrictions 56 of 84

57 Classification Name Classification Signature boolean classifiesas (Ontology O, concept A, individual i) Description Checks if the given individual i is an instance of concept A in the ontology ref, then return true. Otherwise return false. Pattern b = classifiesas ( O, A, i) Input An Ontology O, Concept A and Individual i Output b = true iff i is an instance of A, b = false otherwise 57 of 84

58 Classification in Software Modeling Accomplished Service Determines the most specific type an Model Element belongs to With respect to all Attributes and Properties in the Context of the Model Element Requirements for Language Designers Define Axioms Possibility to define Constraints and Restrictions Benefits for Language Users Automatically Refinement of Model Elements Suggestions of suitable domain concepts to be used 58 of 84

59 Classification (Example) M2 Metamodel class ObjectNode extends ActivityNode equivalentwith ((restrictionon incoming with some ObjectFlow) and (restrictionon outgoing with some ObjectFlow)) { } M1 Model Send Invoice Invoice Make Payment Classify Invoice Node Result: It is of type ObjectNode 59 of 84

60 Subsumption Checking Name Subsumption Checking Signature boolean subsumes (Ontology O, concept A, concept B) Description Pattern Input Output Checks whether the interpretation of A is a subset of the interpretation of B in the given ontology O. If the interpretation of A is a subset of the interpretation of B, then return true. Otherwise returns false. b = subsumes (O,A,B) An Ontology O and concepts A, B b = true iff the interpretation of A is a subset of the interpretation of B in the ontology O, b = false otherwise 60 of 84

61 Subsumption Checking in Software Modeling Accomplished Service Computes a Subsumption Hierarchy of all Classes based on all Class Expressions and Axioms in the Ontology Requirements for Language Designers Define Axioms Possibility to define Expressions and Restrictions 61 of 84

62 Explanation Name Signature Description Pattern Input Output Explanation Set<Axiom> getexplanation (Ontology O, axiom Ax) Retrieve the set of axioms that entail axiom Ax in the given ontology, then return them. b = getexplanation (O,Ax) An Ontology O and axiom Ax b = set of axioms that entail the given axiom Ax. b = NULL otherwise 62 of 84

63 Explanation for Software Modeling Accomplished Service Explanations for subsumptions and unsatisfiable classes in metamodels Explanations for inconsistencies in models Benefits for Language Designers Debugging of metamodels Benefits for Language Users Debugging of models 63 of 84

64 Explanation (Example Unsatisfiability) M2 Metamodel class ActivityNode equivalentwith restrictionon edge with some Final{ reference incoming [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof target; reference outgoing [0-*] : ActivityEdge oppositeof source; } transitive reference edge [0-*] : ActivityNode ischain(outgoing, target); class Final extends ControlNode subclassof (restrictionon edge with some ActivityNode) and not(restrictionon edge with some ActivityNode) { } Explanation from TwoUse Toolkit Unsatisfiability of Final: Explanation: Final equivalentto not edge some ActivityNode and edge some ActivityNode 64 of 84

65 Querying Name Query answering Signature Set answering (Ontology O, query q) Description checks the answer sets of a query q to ontology O. Pattern res = answering (Ontology O, query q) Input Output An Ontology O, and a query q res = a set of answers of the query to the ontology iff there is a answer set res = NULL if there is not any answer 65 of 84

66 Querying Service for Software Modeling Accomplished Service Query for model elements and metamodel element Use of OWL2 entailment regime Benefits for Language Designers Retrieving information on concepts Benefits for Language Users Retrieving existing and complex parts of models E.g. [Tappolet-2010]. 66 of 84

67 Querying (Example) Find all actions, that are executed before Ship Order : Query ( ClassAssertion(?i Action), ObjectPropertyAssertion(InverseInverseObjectProperties(edge)?i shiporder)) Results: c ================= fillorder receiveorder M1 Model [order rejected] Receive Order [order accepted] Fill Order Ship Order Close Order Send Invoice Make Payment Accept Payment Invoice 67 of 84

68 Querying (Example) Find all unsatisfiable classes: Query ( SubClassOf(?c owl:nothing) ) Results: c ============ Nothing Final Find all concepts that do not go via edge to Final: Query ( EquivalentClasses(?c Not(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(edge Final)))) Results: c =================== ActivityDiagram of 84

69 Special notes: Open vs. Closed World Mapping to: Abox: Incomplete vs. Complete models Tbox: no problem Tools support: Open World yes Closed Domain yes Closed World not really 69 of 84

70 Conclusion for this part OWL Ontologies are software models Metamodeling facilitates life: Use of established modeling tools definition of translations Reasoning not restricted to UML Class Diagrams Translation Classical MDA Model Model Software PIM PSM Code 70 of 84

71 Discussion Questions? 71 of 84

72 Semantic Model-driven Engineering Improving Design Patterns by Description Logics: An integration bridge with Gerd Gröner, Fernando Silva Parreiras, Tobias Walter 72 of 84

73 Agenda Description Logics Reasoning by Example Model-driven engineering with OWL Refinements in several dimensions Refinements along metamodeling levels [Models 2009, ECMFA 2010] Refinements along model specification [DL 2009, EKAW 2010] From business developer to software developer Refinements along platform specification [ER 2008, DKE2010] For Ontology Translations Refinements along time Metamodel evolution [ISWC2010] Suggesting changes to transformations by DL reasoning Ontology API Generation/Co-evolution [ICSC 2009] 73 of 84

74 This part of the tutorial is about Weaving features of Description Logics into the Strategy Pattern under the variant management subset of software design patterns. Description Logics (OWL) Classification Inference Variant Management Algorithm Encapsulation Factorization of common functionality Choice of implementations Sel ec tor Pa tter n Software Design Patterns 74 of 84

75 Running Example An order-processing system for an international e- commerce company in the United States This system must be able to process sales orders in many different countries, like the USA and Germany, and handle different tax calculations. 75 of 84

76 Strategy Pattern context TaskController::getRulesForCountry():Tax body: if so.customer.country.name = 'USA' then USTax.new() else if so.customer.country.name = 'GERMANY' then GermanTax.new() endif endif Client How to improve it? TaskController so : SalesOrder getrulesforcountry() : Tax process() Coupling 3. Customer Country name : String SalesOrder process(tax : Tax) USTax Tax taxamount() 4. GermanTax Drawbacks: Tangling Context Strategies 76 of 84

77 Building Blocks -The TwoUse solution Uses an Ontology to describe Context and Strategies Classifies dynamically the Context - Hybrid Diagram - Metamodel - Transformation Process Client TaskController so : SalesOrder getrulesforcountry(): Tax process() Customer SalesOrder process(tax : Tax) Tax taxamount() Context Country name:string USTax GermanTax Strategies 77 of 84

78 Hybrid Diagram: Strategy Pattern + OWL No Coupling No Tangling TaskController process() «owlclass» Customer context SalesOrder::getRulesForCountry():OclType body: Select?T where?self directtype?t «owlclass» Country «owlclass» SalesOrder process() getrulesforcountry() «rdfsubclassof» «owlclass» (USSalesOrder) USTax «equivalentclass» «owlrestriction» Tax taxamount() «rdfsubclassof» «owlclass» (GermanSalesOrder) GermanTax «equivalentclass» «owlrestriction» UML OWL TwoUse Dynamic Classification Reuse «owlvalue» {somevaluesfrom=uscustomer} hascustomer «owlrestriction» USCustomer «owlvalue» {hasvalue = USA} country : Country «owlrestriction» GermanCustomer «owlvalue» {hasvalue = GERMANY} hascountry : Country «owlvalue» {somevaluesfrom=germancustomer} hascustomer 78 of 84 Flexibility

79 TwoUse Metamodels Organization M3 MOF InstanceOf UML OWL M2 TwoUse SPARQL 79 of 84

80 Transformation Process Abstract Syntax M2 M1 UML Metamodel TwoUse Metamodel UML TwoUse 1. OWL Metamodel InstanceOf OWL Metamodel Grammar Ontology Java Metamodel Java 3. Java OWL Concrete Syntax UML Profiled 4TwoUse UML Profiled 4 OWL UML Profiled 4Java Java Reasoner API PIM PSM PSM Source Code OWL RDF XML Syntax 80 of 84

81 Key Messages The Ontology can be: reused independently of platform; modeled and evolved independently of the execution logic; tested automatically by logical unit tests. Changes required for adoption are minor. 81 of 84

82 References Software Language Engineering, 3rd Int. Conf, October 2010, Eindhoven Applying model-driven engineering for the Semantic Web S. Brockmans, R. Volz, A. Eberhart, and P. Löffler. Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In Proc. of ISWC 2004, pages , Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V.: Model Driven Engineering and Ontology Development, 2nd Ed. Springer (2009) F. S. Parreiras, G. Gröner, T. Walter, S. Staab. A model-driven approach for using templates in OWL ontologies. In: Proc. of the European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management EKAW Lisbon, Portugal, October 2008, LNCS, Springer. F. Silva Parreiras, C. Saathoff, T. Walter, T. Franz, S. Staab: APIs `a gogo: Automatic Generation of Ontology APIs. In: IEEE Int. Conference on Semantic Computing, IEEE Press, F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, S. Schenk, A. Winter. Model Driven Specification of Ontology Translations. ER th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, LNCS, Springer, Applying RDF/OWL querying for software engineering Jonas Tappolet, Christoph Kiefer, Abraham Bernstein, Semantic web enabled software analysis, Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 8, July 2010 G. Gröner, S. Staab. Modeling and Query Patterns for Process Retrieval in OWL. In: Proc. of ISWC-2009 International Semantic Web Conference, Westfield, USA, Oct 25-29, of 84

83 References Applying ontology reasoning for software engineering G. Gröner, S. Staab. Specialization and Validation of Statecharts in OWL. In: Proc. of the European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management EKAW October 2008, LNCS, Springer. F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, A. Winter. Improving Design Patterns by Description Logics: An Use Case with Abstract Factory and Strategy. In: Proc. of Modellierung LNI, Gi e.v, März Wang, H., Li, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, H., Pan, J.: Verifying Feature Models using OWL. J of Web Semantics 5(2) (2007) Y. Ren, G. Gröner, J. Lemcke, T. Rahmani, A. Friesen, Y. Zhao, J. Z. Pan, S. Staab. Validating Process Refinement with Ontologies. In: The 22nd International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2009). 27 to 30 July 2009, Oxford, United Kingdom. 83 of 84

84 References Integrating software and ontology engineering practices: F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab, A. Winter. On Marrying Ontological and Metamodeling Technical Spaces. In: ESEC/ACM FSE-2007 Proceedings of the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the 14th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, September 03-07, 2007, Dubrovnik, Croatia. ACM 2007, pp F. S. Parreiras, S. Staab. Using Ontologies with UML Class-based Modeling: The TwoUse Approach. In: Data & Knowledge Engineering, Elsevier, to appear. Integrating software and ontology engineering practices: Creating Domain-specific languages with OWL T. Walter, F. S. Parreiras, S. Staab, J. Ebert. Joint Language and Domain Engineering. In: B. Selic & T. Kühne (eds.). Proc. of ECMFA th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (formerly ECMDA-FA), LNCS, Springer, Paris, France, June T. Walter, F. Silva Parreiras, S. Staab. OntoDSL: An Ontology-based Development Environment for Domain-specific Languages. In: Proc. of Models ACM/IEEE 12th Int. Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Denver, Colorado, October 4-9, Upcoming books Uwe Assmann, Jeff Pan,, Yuting (eds.) Marrying ontology and software technologies, book, by Springer, 2011 F. Parreiras, TwoUse book, by Wiley, early of 84