Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models

Web Science & Technologies
University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany

An Ontology-based Approach for
Enabling Linked Data Capabilities
to MOF Compliant Models

Fernando Silva Parreiras, Gerd Gröner, Tobias Walter

Model Driven Engineering

Standards for
• General purpose languages
• Domain specific languages

Abstraction principle

Specialization /
Inheritance

Transformations

➔
Engineering relies on a variety of languages (to describe
models)
WeST Gerd Gröner ICEIS 2012
groener@uni-koblenz.de 2

… how to deal with the variety of languages?

BPMN UML
AD
✔ different languages for
different modeling purposes DSL1
✔ different views on systems
GRL
DSL2

ecosystem of various
modeling languages
→ islands

✗ information request across models of multiple languages
✗ relationships between languages (e.g., BPMN and UML)


What is missing so far?
UML
AD

BPMN

DSL1 GRL

DSL2


UML
AD

BPMN

DSL1 GRL

1. links / connections DSL2

2. understand links


UML
AD

BPMN

DSL1 GRL

1. links / connections DSL2 FD

2. understand links

3. add or extend languages


UML
AD

BPMN

DSL1 GRL

1. links / connections DSL2 FD

2. understand links

3. add or extend languages

4. views (or extractions) → querying


Final Goal

Perspective:
explore and query
engineer
over models of
multiple languages

➔
Obviously, it is hard and probably undesired to have a single
unified modeling language

➔
Instead: build and enable a
networked and federated
connect and
development architecture link

“Web of models”

Idea

Use existing Semantic Web technologies

Representation: Integration:
Expressive languages with techniques to identify
well defined semantics correspondences

best practice
(e.g., Linked Data):
design, publish and consume
data on the Web

➔
adopt technologies ➔
learn from best practice


Outline

1) Introduction
2) Background
3) Integrating MOF and OWL
4) Conclusion


Web Ontology Language (OWL)

OWL DL (or OWL 2 DL)
➔
Compatible with RDF (and LOD principles)
➔
Modeling “layers”:
powerful for
TBox:
describing
Classes (atomic and complex),
domain
Properties (object and datatype properties)
concepts in
ABox: networked
Individuals environments

➔
Approaches to establish mappings and correspondences
between MOF (meta-) models and OWL models


… integrate OWL to MOF models

syntax
→ additional modeling solid and grounded
constructs semantics

➔
represent and understand metamodels, models and
relationships

➔
techniques to identify equivalence syntax and
semantics
or similarity

➔
connect / relate elements of models language
and metamodels constructs


Outline

1) Introduction
2) Background
3) Integrating MOF and OWL
4) Conclusion

linking
principles extending mapping integration
(with OWL MOF MOF → OWL management
constructs)


Linking MOF Metamodels with OWL Constructs

EquivalentClass (uml:Activity bpmn:BpmnDiagram)

EquivalentClass (uml:ActivityNode bpmn:Vertex)

TransitiveObjectProperty(uml:general)

SubObjectPropertyOf( ObjectPropertyChain
(bpmn:outgoingEdge bpmn:target) uml:successorNodes)

EquivalentObjectProperties
(uml:successorNodes bpmn:successorActivities)


Extending MOF

EMOF
➔
every Object is an EObject
(EClass, EReference, EAttribute, ...)
➔
build on EAnnotations

Realization steps:
1. Use EMOF metametamodel to represent metamodels
2. Annotate (enrich) metamodels
●
EReference → ObjectProperty (OWL)
●
EClass → Class (OWL)
3. Define additional constructs
➔
equivalent classes


Example: UML and BPMN metamodel

additional
OWL
constructs

linking → OWL annotations

Mapping MOF to OWL


Mapping MOF to OWL – Example


Integration Management

Problem:
reconcile resources that are
expressed by different modeling
languages
Linking
➔
techniques from ontology
alignment
Align-
➔
identify correspondences ment

1. syntactic matching
e.g., uml:Activity ↔ bpmn:BpmnDiagram



Problem:
languages
Linking
➔
alignment
Align-
➔

2. relational structure comparison



Problem:
languages
Linking
➔
alignment
Align-
➔

2. relational structure comparison
3. extensional techniques


Integration Management (2)

Querying MOF-models

➔
SPARQL: W3C standard query
language (primarily for RDF) (RDF representation)

➔
SPARQLAS: query language that
allows OWL syntax
•
more readable queries
•
translated to SPARQL

(more expressive
✔ Query both levels: model and OWL representation)
metamodel


SPARQLAS – Query Example

What Use Cases do I have to test If I update the component
west.twouse.reasoner?

Namespace: uml = <http://www.eclipse.org/uml2/3.0.0/UML#>
Namespace: srs = <http://west.uni-koblenz.de/SRS#>
Namespace: mf = <http://west.uni-koblenz.de/EclipseManifest#>

Select ?name
Where: ?component mf:name "west.twouse.reasoner"^^xsd:string
?component srs:requirement ?requirement
?requirement srs:useCase ?uc
?uc uml:name ?name


Conclusion

Situation: ecosystems of various
modeling languages
→ islands

➔
Semantic Web technologies for linking and querying software
models
1. OWL constructs (e.g.,
sameAs, EquivalentWith) to
2. OWLizer for MOF-
connect/link concepts and
based modes
instances of different languages

4. SPARQLAS
3. find correspondences for querying multiple
software models and
metamodels

Conclusion (2)

Techniques and practices from the Semantic Web:

➔
Intended for linking and integrating data
➔
Efficient processing

➔
vision: “web of models”


Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models

Similar to Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models