This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Toward Formalizing Domain Modeling Semantics in Language Syntax
January 2005 (vol. 31 no. 1)
pp. 21-37
Information Systems are situated in and are representations of some business or organizational domain. Hence, understanding the application domain is critical to the success of information systems development. To support domain understanding, the application domain is represented in conceptual models. The correctness of conceptual models can affect the development outcome and prevent costly rework during later development stages. This paper proposes a method to restrict the syntax of a modeling language to ensure that only possible configurations of a domain can be modeled, thus increasing the likelihood of creating correct domain models. The proposed method, based on domain ontologies, captures relationships among domain elements via constraints on the language metamodel, thus restricting the set of statements about the domain that can be generated with the language. In effect, this method creates domain specific modeling languages from more generic ones. The method is demonstrated using the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Specifically, it is applied to the subset of UML dealing with object behavior and its applicability is demonstrated on a specific modeling example.

[1] R. Offen, “Domain Understanding Is the Key to Successful System Development,” Requirements Eng., vol. 7, pp. 172-175, 2002.
[2] N. Iscoe, G.B. Williams, and G. Arango, “Domain Modeling for Software Engineering,” Proc. 13th Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 340-343, 1991.
[3] M. Jackson, “The World and the Machine,” Proc. 17th Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 283-292, 1995.
[4] B. Boehm, “Understanding and Controlling Software Costs,” Trans. Software Eng., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1462-1477, Oct. 1988.
[5] M. Cilia, M. Haupt, M. Mezini, and A. Buchmann, “The Convergence of AOP and Active Databases: Towards Reactive Middleware,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Generative Programming and Component Eng., pp. 169-188, 2003.
[6] M. Kolp, P. Giorgini, and J. Mylopoulos, “Information Systems Development through Social Structures,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng., pp. 183-190, 2002.
[7] P. Roe, “Distributed XML Objects,” Proc. Joint Modular Languages Conf., pp. 63-68, 2003.
[8] S. Rozen and D. Shasha, “Using a Relational System on Wall Street: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Ideal,” Comm. ACM, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 988-993, Aug. 1989.
[9] J.F. Sowa, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks Cole, 2000.
[10] The Unified Modelling Language Specification. Version 1.4, Object Management Group, 2001.
[11] A.L. Opdahl and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Grounding the OML Metamodel in Ontology,” J. Systems and Software, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 119-143, 2001.
[12] A.-W. Scheer, ARIS— Business Process Modeling. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1999.
[13] P.-S. Chen, “The Entity-Relationship Model— Toward a Unified View of Data,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, no. 1, pp. 9-36, 1976.
[14] A. Evans and S. Kent, “Core Meta-Modelling Semantics of UML: The pUML Approach,” The Unified Modeling Language— Beyond the Standard: Proc. Second Int'l Workshop, pp. 99-115, 1999.
[15] A. Evans, K. Lano, R. France, and B. Rumpe, “Meta-Modelling Semantics of UML,” Behavioural Specifications for Businesses and Systems, H. Kilov, ed., Kluwer 1999.
[16] G. Arango, “Domain Analysis: From Art Form to Engineering Discipline,” Proc. Fifth Int'l Workshop Software Specification and Design, pp. 152-159, May 1989.
[17] E. Morandin, G. Stellucci, and F. Baruchelli, “A Reuse-Based Software Process Based on Domain Analysis and OO Framework,” Proc. 24th Euromicro Conf., vol. 2, pp. 890-897, 1998.
[18] I. Philippow and M. Riebisch, “Systematic Definition of Reusable Architectures,” Proc. Eighth Ann. IEEE Int'l Conf. and Workshop Eng. Computer Based Systems, pp. 128-135, 2001.
[19] T. Jayase, N. Ikeda, and K. Matsumoto, “A Three-View Model for Developing Object-Oriented Frameworks,” Proc. 39th Int'l Conf. and Exhibition on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, Q. Li, R. Riehle, G. Pour, and B. Meyer, eds., pp. 108-119, 2001.
[20] P. Galfione, A. Galdiolo, A. Valreio, and G. Cardino, “Exploiting Enterprise Knowledge through Domain Analysis and Frameworks: An Experimental Work,” Proc. 11th Int'l Workshop Database and Expert Systems Applications, A. Tjoa, R. Wagner, and A. Al-Zobaidie, eds., pp. 813-817, 2000.
[21] S. Cohen and L. Northrop, “Object-Oriented Technology and Domain Analysis,” Proc. Fifth Int'l Conf. Software Reuse, P. Devanbu and J. Poulin, eds., pp. 86-93, June 1998.
[22] H. Gomaa, “An Object-Oriented Domain Analysis and Modeling Method for Software Reuse,” Proc. 25th Hawaii Int'l Conf. System Sciences, V. Milutinovic, B. Shriver, J. Nunamaker, and R. Sprague, eds., vol. 2, pp. 46-52, 1992.
[23] M. Morisio, G. Travassos, and M. Stark, “Extending UML to Support Domain Analysis,” Proc. 15th IEEE Int'l Conf. Automated Software Eng., pp. 321-324, 2000.
[24] R. Breu, U. Hinkel, C. Hofmann, C. Klein, B. Paech, B. Rumpe, and V. Thurner, “Towards a Formalization of the Unified Modeling Language,” Proc. 11th European Conf. Object-Oriented Programming, M. Aksit and S. Matsuoka, eds., Springer Verlag, 1997.
[25] R. Breu, R. Grosu, F. Huber, B. Rumpe, and W. Schwerin, “Systems, Views and Models of UML,” The Unified Modeling Language, Technical Aspects and Applications, M. Schader and A. Korthaus, eds., Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, 1998.
[26] J.-M. Bruel and R.B. France, “Transforming UML Models to Formal Specifications,” The Unified Modeling Language: Beyond the Notation, Proc. First Int'l Workshop, 1999.
[27] A. Evans, R. France, K. Lano, and B. Rumpe, “The UML as a Formal Modeling Notation,” The Unified Modeling Language: Beyond the Notation, Proc. First Int'l Workshop, 1999.
[28] A.S. Evans, “Reasoning with UML Class Diagrams,” Proc. Workshop Industrial Strength Formal Methods, 1998.
[29] A. Evans and A. Clark, “Foundations of the Unified Modeling Language,” Proc. Second Northern Formal Methods Workhop, 1998.
[30] K. Lano and A. Evans, “Rigorous Development in UML,” Proc. Joint EuropeanConf. Theory and Practice of Software, Fundamental Approaches to Software Eng. Workshop, 1999.
[31] P. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Harper Perennial, 1981.
[32] M.A. Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977.
[33] T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, third ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996.
[34] M. Uschold and M. Gruninger, “Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications,” Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 11, no. 2, June 1996.
[35] N.F. Noy and C.D. Hafner, “The State of the Art in Ontology Design: A Survey and Comparative Review,” Artificial Intelligence Magazine, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 53-74, 1997.
[36] M. Gruninger and J. Lee, “Ontology Applications and Design,” Comm. ACM, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 39-41, Feb. 2002.
[37] C.W. Holsaple and K. Joshi, “A Collaborative Approach to Ontology Design,” Comm. ACM, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 42-47, Feb. 2002.
[38] B. Smith and C. Welty, “Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis,” Proc. Second Int'l Conf. Formal Ontology and Information Systems, pp. iii-ix, 2001.
[39] N. Guarino and C. Welty, “Evaluating Ontological Decisions with OntoClean,” Comm. ACM, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 61-65, Feb. 2002.
[40] Y. Wand, “A Proposal for a Formal Model of Objects,” Object-Oriented Concepts, Languages, Applications and Databases, W. Kim and F. Lochovsky, eds., pp. 537-559, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[41] Y. Wand and R. Weber, “On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars,” J. Information Systems, no. 3, pp. 217-237, 1993.
[42] M.A. Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ontology II: A World of Systems. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
[43] P. Green and M. Rosemann, “Integrated Process Modelling: An Ontological Analysis,” Information Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 73-97, Apr. 2000.
[44] A. Opdahl and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43-67, Sept. 2002.
[45] J. Evermann, “Using Design Languages for Conceptual Modelling: The UML Case,” PhD dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada, 2003.
[46] A. Opdahl and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Evaluating and Improving OO Modelling Languages Using the BWW-Model,” Proc. Information Systems Foundation Workshop, 1999,http://www.comp.mq. edu.au/isf99Opdahl.htm .
[47] A. Opdahl, B. Henderson-Sellers, and F. Barbier, “An Ontological Evaluation of the OML Metamodel,” Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging, E. Falkenberg and K. Lyytinen, eds., IFIP/Kluwer, 1999.
[48] Y. Wand, V.C. Storey, and R. Weber, “An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 494-528, Dec. 1999.
[49] J. Parsons and Y. Wand, “Using Objects for Systems Analysis,” Comm. ACM, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 104-110, 1997.
[50] F. Bodart and R. Weber, “Optional Properties versus Subtyping in Conceptual Modeling: A Theory and Empirical Test,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Information Systems, p. 450, 1996.
[51] F. Bodart, A. Patel, M. Sim, and R. Weber, “Should Optional Properties be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests,” Information Systems Research, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 384-405, Dec. 2001.
[52] S. Cockroft and S. Rowles, “Ontological Evaluation of Health Models: Some Early Findings,” Proc. Seventh Pacific Asia Conf. Information Systems, 2003.
[53] A. Gemino, “Empirical Comparisons of Systems Analysis Modeling Techniques,” PhD dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada, 1999.
[54] R. Weber and Y. Zhang, “An Analytical Evaluation of NIAM's Grammar for Conceptual Schema Diagrams,” Information Systems J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 147-170, Apr. 1996.
[55] D. Harel, “On Visual Formalisms,” Comm. ACM, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 514-530, May 1988.
[56] D. Harel and A. Naamad, “The STATEMATE Semantics of Statecharts,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Methodology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 293-333, Oct. 1996.
[57] A. Dussart, B.A. Aubert, and M. Patry, “An Evaluation of Inter-Organizational Workflow Modeling Formalisms,” Ecole des Haute Etudes Commercials Montreal, working paper, 2002.
[58] J. Evermann and Y. Wand, “Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs,” Proc. 20th Int'l Conf. Conceptual Modeling, H. Kunii, S. Jajodia, and A. Solvberg, eds., pp. 354-367, 2001.
[59] J. Evermann and Y. Wand, “An Ontological Examination of Object Interaction in Conceptual Modeling,” Proc. Workshop Information Technologies and Systems, pp. 91-96, 2001.
[60] J. Warmer and A. Kleppe, The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[61] H. Hussmann, B. Demuth, and F. Figer, “Modular Architecture for a Toolset Supporting OCL,” Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Unified Modeling Language, 2000.
[62] D. Harel and E. Gery, “Executable Object Modeling with Statecharts,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 246-256, 1996.

Index Terms:
Analysis, methodologies, specification, object-oriented design methods, design concepts, CASE, ontology.
Citation:
Joerg Evermann, Yair Wand, "Toward Formalizing Domain Modeling Semantics in Language Syntax," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 21-37, Jan. 2005, doi:10.1109/TSE.2005.15
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.