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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (19)

Semelhante a Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models

Semelhante a Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models (20)

Último

Último (20)

Linked Data Techniques for MOF compliant Models