Representation of UML Class Diagrams in OWL 2 on the Background of Domain Ontologies

• Autorzy: Sadowska Małgorzata , Huzar Zbigniew

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5277/e-Inf190103

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: UML class diagrams can be automatically validated if they are compliant with a domain knowledge specified in a selected OWL 2 domain ontology. The method requires translation of the diagrams into their OWL 2 representation. Aim: The aim of this paper is to present transformation and verification rules of UML class diagrams to their OWL 2 representation. Method: The analysis of the results of the systematic literature review on the topic of transformation rules between elements of UML class diagrams and OWL 2 constructs. The purpose of the analysis is to present the extent to which state-of-the-art transformation rules cover the semantics expressed in class diagrams. On the basis of the analysis, new transformation rules expressing the semantics not yet covered but expected from the point of view of domain modelling pragmatics have been defined. Results: The first result is the revision and extension of the transformation rules identified in the literature. The second original result is a proposition of verification rules necessary to check if a UML class diagram is compliant with the OWL 2 domain ontology. Conclusion: The proposed transformations can be used for automatic validation of compliance of UML class diagrams with respect to OWL 2 domain ontologies.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

UML; OWL2; transformation rules; verification rules

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 13, nr 1
• Strony: 63--103
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 37 poz., tab., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Sadowska Małgorzata

• Faculty of Computer Science and Management, Wrocław University of Science and Technology

autor

Huzar Zbigniew

• Faculty of Computer Science and Management, Wrocław University of Science and Technology

Bibliografia

• [1] M. Sadowska and Z. Huzar, “Semantic validation of UML class diagrams with the use of domain ontologies expressed in OWL 2,” in Software Engineering: Challenges and Solutions. Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 47–59.
• [2] Unified Modeling Language, Version 2.5, OMG, 2015. [Online]. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5
• [3] OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition), W3C, 2012. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
• [4] M. Sadowska, “A prototype tool for semantic validation of UML class diagrams with the use of domain ontologies expressed in OWL 2,” in Towards a Synergistic Combination of Research and Practice in Software Engineering. Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 49–62.
• [5] M. Sadowska and Z. Huzar, “The method of normalizing OWL 2 DL ontologies,” Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2018, pp. 1–13.
• [6] A. Korthaus, “Using UML for business object based systems modeling,” in The Unified Modeling Language. Physica-Verlag HD, 1998, pp. 220–237.
• [7] H.E. Eriksson and M. Penker, Business Modeling With UML: Business Patterns at Work. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons inc., 2000.
• [8] E.D. Nitto, L. Lavazza, M. Schiavoni, E. Tracanella, and M. Trombetta, “Deriving executable process descriptions from UML,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, ser. ICSE ’02. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2002, pp. 155–165.
• [9] C. Fu, D. Yang, X. Zhang, and H. Hu, “An approach to translating OCL invariants into OWL 2 DL axioms for checking inconsistency,” Automated Software Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2017, pp. 295–339.
• [10] B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering,” Keele University & University of Durham, EBSE Technical Report EBSE 2007-01, 2007.
• [11] X. Zhou, Y. Jin, H. Zhang, S. Li, and X. Huang, “A map of threats to validity of systematic literature reviews in software engineering,” in 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 153–160.
• [12] Z. Xu, Y. Ni, W. He, L. Lin, and Q. Yan, “Automatic extraction of OWL ontologies from UML class diagrams: a semantics-preserving approach,” World Wide Web, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2012, pp. 517–545.
• [13] Z. Xu, Y. Ni, L. Lin, and H. Gu, “A semantics-preserving approach for extracting OWL ontologies from UML class diagrams,” in Database Theory and Application, ser. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 122–136.
• [14] M. Mehrolhassani and A. Elçi, “Developing ontology based applications of semantic web using UML to OWL conversion,” in The Open Knowlege Society. A Computer Science and Information Systems Manifesto, ser. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp. 566–577.
• [15] O. El Hajjamy, K. Alaoui, L. Alaoui, and M. Bahaj, “Mapping UML to OWL2 ontology,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2016, pp. 126–143.
• [16] C. Zhang, Z.R. Peng, T. Zhao, and W. Li, “Transformation of transportation data models from Unified Modeling Language to Web Ontology Language,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2064, No. 1, 2008, pp. 81–89.
• [17] J. Zedlitz, J. Jörke, and N. Luttenberger, “From UML to OWL 2,” in Knowledge Technology, ser. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2012, pp. 154–163.
• [18] A.H. Khan and I. Porres, “Consistency of UML class, object and statechart diagrams using ontology reasoners,” Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, Vol. 26, 2015, pp. 42–65.
• [19] A.H. Khan, I. Rauf, and I. Porres, “Consistency of UML class and statechart diagrams with state invariants,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, S. Hammoudi, L.F. Pires, J. Filipe, and R.C. das Neves, Eds., Vol. 1. SciTePress Digital Library, 2013, p. 1–11.
• [20] J. Zedlitz and N. Luttenberger, “Transforming between UML conceptual models and OWL 2 ontologies,” in Terra Cognita 2012 Workshop, Vol. 6, 2012, p. 15.
• [21] W. Xu, A. Dilo, S. Zlatanova, and P. van Oosterom, “Modelling emergency response processes: Comparative study on OWL and UML,” in Proceedings of the Joint ISCRAM-CHINA and GI4DM Conference, Harbin, China, 2008, pp. 493–504.
• [22] N. Gherabi and M. Bahaj, “A new method for mapping UML class into OWL ontology,” International Journal of Computer Applications Special Issue on Software Engineering, Databases and Expert Systems, Vol. SEDEXS, No. 1, 2012, pp. 5–9. [Online]. https://research.ijcaonline.org/sedex/number1/sedex1002.pdf
• [23] H.S. Na, O.H. Choi, and J.E. Lim, “A method for building domain ontologies based on the transformation of UML models,” in Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA’06), D.K. Baik, D. Primeaux, N. Ishii, and R. Lee, Eds. IEEE, 2006, pp. 332–338.
• [24] M. Bahaj and J. Bakkas, “Automatic conversion method of class diagrams to ontologies maintaining their semantic features,” International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 65–69.
• [25] A. Belghiat and M. Bourahla, “Transformation of UML models towards OWL ontologies,” in 2012 6th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), 2012, pp. 840–846.
• 26] S. Höglund, A.H. Khan, Y. Liu, and I. Porres, “Representing and validating metamodels using OWL 2 and SWRL,” in Proceedings of the 9th Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering, 2010.
• [27] K. Kiko and C. Atkinson, “A detailed comparison of UML and OWL,” University of Mannheim, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik, Tech. Rep. TR-2008-004, 2008.
• [28] J. Zedlitz and N. Luttenberger, “Data types in UML and OWL-2,” in The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, 2013, pp. 32–35.
• [29] J. Zedlitz and N. Luttenberger, “Conceptual modelling in UML and OWL-2,” International Journal on Advances in Software, Vol. 7, No. 1 & 2, 2014, pp. 182–196.
• [30] OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (Second Edition), W3C, 2012. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
• [31] OWL 2 Web Ontology Language New Features and Rationale (Second Edition), W3C, 2012. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/
• [32] N. Noy and A. Rector, Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web, W3C, 2006. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
• [33] W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes, W3C, 2012. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
• [34] OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer (Second Edition), W3C, 2012. [Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/
• [35] I. Dubielewicz, B. Hnatkowska, Z. Huzar, and L. Tuzinkiewicz, “Domain modeling in the context of ontology,” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2015, pp. 3–15. [Online]. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/fcds/40/1/article-p3.xml
• [36] B. Hnatkowska, Z. Huzar, L. Tuzinkiewicz, and I. Dubielewicz, “A new ontology-based approach for construction of domain model,” in Intelligent Information and Database Systems, N.T. Nguyen, S. Tojo, L.M. Nguyen, and B. Trawiński, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 75–85.
• [37] I. Dubielewicz, B. Hnatkowska, Z. Huzar, and L. Tuzinkiewicz, “Domain modeling based on requirements specification and ontology,” in Software Engineering: Challenges and Solutions, L. Madeyski, M. Śmiałek, B. Hnatkowska, and Z. Huzar, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 31–45.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).