From UML/OCL to SBVR specifications: A challenging transformation

Information Systems

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 417-440

  Cabot, Jordi ^a   Pau, Raquel ^b   Raventós, Ruth ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b GTD Ingeniería de Sistemas y de Software   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Model transformation; OCL; SBVR; UML

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC TRANSFORMATIONS; BUSINESS RULES; BUSINESS VOCABULARY; CONCEPTUAL SCHEMAS; GRAPHICAL ELEMENTS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DESIGN; IS IMPLEMENTATION; META MODEL; MODEL TRANSFORMATION; MODELING LANGUAGES; NATURAL LANGUAGES; OBJECT CONSTRAINT LANGUAGE;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LINGUISTICS; QUERY LANGUAGES; SPECIFICATIONS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 77149142658     PISSN: 03064379     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.is.2008.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ahrendt W., Baar T., Beckert B., Bubel R., Giese M., Hähnle R., Menzel W., Mostowski W., Roth A., Schlager S., and Schmitt P.H. The key tool. Software and Systems Modeling 4 1 (2005) 32-54
2. K. Anastasakis, B. Bordbar, G. Georg, I. Ray, UML2Alloy: a challenging model transformation, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS'07), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 4735, 2007, pp. 436-450.
3. Berardi D., Cali A., Calvanese D., and Giacomo G.D. Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence (2005)
4. J. Bézivin, F. Büttner, M. Gogolla, F. Jouault, I. Kurtev, A. Lindow, Model transformations? Transformation models! in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS'06), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 4199, 2006, pp. 440-453.
5. Brucker A.D., and Wolff B. The HOL-OCL book. ETH Technical Report 525 (2006)
6. D.A. Burke, K. Johannisson, Translating formal software specifications to natural language: a grammar-based approach, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL'05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 3492, 2005, pp. 51-66.
7. J. Cabot, E. Teniente, Determining the structural events that may violate an integrity constraint, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML'04), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 3273, 2004, pp. 173-187.
8. J. Cabot, R. Pau, Paraphrasing OCL expressions with SBVR, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB'08), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 5039, 2008, pp. 311-316.
9. J. Cabot, R. Clarisó, D. Riera, UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming, in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'07), 2007, pp. 547-548.
10. J. Cabot, R. Pau, R. Raventós, UML-to-SBVR and SBVR-to-HTML transformations. Available from: 〈www.lsi.upc.edu/~jcabot/research/SBVR〉.
11. Cabot J., and Teniente E. Transformation techniques for OCL constraints. Science of Computer Programming 68 3 (2007) 152-168
12. H. Dalianis, P. Johannesson, Explaining conceptual models-using Toulmin's argumentation model and RST, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP'98), 1998, pp. 131-140.
13. M. De Tommasi, A. Corallo, SBEAVER: a tool for modeling business vocabularies and business rules, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (KES'06), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 4253, 2006, pp. 1083-1091.
14. B. Demuth, H. Liebau, An approach for bridging the gap between business rules and the semantic web, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Advances in Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML'07), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 4824, 2007, pp. 119-133.
15. Embley D.W., Kurtz B.D., and Woodfield S.N. Object-Oriented Systems Analysis: A Model-Driven Approach (1991), Yourdon Press
16. M. Gogolla, M. Richters, Expressing UML class diagrams properties with OCL, in:, Proceedings of the Object Modeling with the OCL, The Rationale behind the Object Constraint Language, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, vol. 2263, 2002, pp. 86-115.
17. Gogolla M., Bohling J., and Richters M. Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. Software and System Modeling 4 4 (2005) 386-398
18. GTD, GTD Ingenieria de Sistemas y de Software. Available from: 〈http://www.gtd.es/〉.
19. Gulla J.A. A general explanation component for conceptual modeling in CASE environments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14 3 (1996) 297-329
20. Halpin T. Business rule modality. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'06) (2006)
21. IEEE: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Std 830-1998, 1998.
22. ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base, in: J.J. van Griethuysen (Ed.), 1982.
23. Jouault F., Allilaire F., Bézivin J., Kurtev I., and Valduriez P. ATL: a QVT-like transformation language. Proceedings of the OOPSLA Companion vol. 2006 (2006) 719-720
24. Kleppe A., Warmer J., and Bast W. MDA Explained. Object Technology Series (2003), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
25. KnowGravityInc. KnowEnterprise®/Business, Comprehensive support for the business perspective of model driven enterprise engineering, 〈http://www.knowgravity.ch/eng/pdf-e/KnowEnterprise-BU%20E.pdf 〉.
26. Lavoie B., Rambow O., and Reiter E. The ModelExplainer. Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (1996) 9-12
27. Linehan M. Semantics in model-driven business design. Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Policy Workshop (SWPW'06) (2006)
28. M.H. Linehan, Ontologies and rules in business models, in: Proceedings of the 11th International EDOC Conference Workshop (EDOC '07), 2007, pp. 149-156.
29. Meziane F., Athanasakis N., and Ananiadou S. Generating natural language specifications from UML class diagrams. Requirements Engineering Journal 13 1 (2008) 1-18
30. M. Milanović, D. Gašević, A. Giurca, G. Wagner, V. Devedžic, Sharing OCL constraints by using web rules, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Modelling Systems with OCL in the MODELS'07 Conference, 2007.
31. MOFScript. Available from: 〈http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/mofscript/〉.
32. Moore J.D., and Swartout W.R. A reactive approach to explanation: taking the user's feedback into account. Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
33. Nijhuis M. Generating natural language explanations for conceptual models. Proceedings of the Third Twente Student Conference on IT (2005)
34. A. Olivé, Conceptual schema-centric development: a grand challenge for information systems research, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 3520, 2005, pp. 1-15.
35. OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification, OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/03-10-14), 2003.
36. OMG, SBVR issues in the mailing list of the semantics of business vocabulary and business rules finalization task force. Available from: 〈http://www.omg.org/issues/sbvr-ftf.clos.html〉.
37. OMG: UML 2.1.1 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification (formal/07-02-03), 2007.
38. OMG: Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM), OMG Standard, dtc/2007-07-01, 2007.
39. OMG: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR) Specification, v. 1.0 (formal/08-01-02), 2008.
40. Paulk M.C. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. SEI Series in Software Engineering (1995), Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA
41. A. Raj, T.V. Prabhakar, S. Hendryx, Transformation of SBVR business design to UML models, in: Proceedings of the First India Software Engineering Conference, 2008.
42. Raventós R., and Olivé A. An object-oriented operation-based approach to translation between MOF metaschemas. Data and Knowledge Engineering 67 3 (2008) 444-462
43. C. Rolland, C. Proix, A natural language approach for requirements engineering, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'92), 1992, pp. 257-277.
44. RuleArts, RuleXpress-the business tool for expressing and communicating business rules, 〈http://www.rulexpress.com/index.php〉.
45. SBVR-Eclipse, 〈http://wiki.eclipse.org/SBVR_Tools_Metamodel〉.
46. Schacher M. Moving from zachman row 2 to zachman row. Business Rules Journal 7 6 (2006)
47. Selic B. The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20 5 (2003) 19-25
48. R.V.D. Straeten, T. Mens, J. Simmonds, V. Jonckers, Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML'03), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, No. 2863, 2003, pp. 326-340.
49. Wagner G., Giurca A., and Lukichev S. A usable interchange format for rich syntax rules integrating OCL, RuleML and SWRL. Proceedings of the Reasoning on the Web (WWW'06 Workshop) (2006)
50. G. Wagner, S. Lukichev, N.E. Fuchs, S. Spreeuwenberg, First-Version Controlled English Rule Language, deliverable, REWERSE Project, IST506779/Eindhoven/I1-D2/D/PU/b1, 2005.