Verifying and Validating Multi-layered Models with OWL FA Toolkit

  • Nophadol Jekjantuk
  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Gerd Gröner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6089)


This paper details the use of OWL FA Toolkit for verifying and validating multi-layered (meta-) modelling using ontologies described in OWL FA. We will show how OWL FA and its reasoner (OWL FA Toolkit) could benefit the software modeller on leveraging the software development life cycle through a practical use case.


  1. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: A challenging model transformation. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 436–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckert, B., Keller, U., Schmitt, P.H., et al.: Translating the Object Constraint Language into first-order predicate logic. In: Proceedings, VERIFY, Workshop at Federated Logic Conferences (FLoC), Copenhagen, Denmark, Citeseer (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 70–118 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, A.: An introduction to Model Driven Architecture. IBM Technical Report (2004),
  5. 5.
    Cabot, J., Clariso, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL Class Diagrams using Constraint Programming. In: Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop, pp. 73–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jekjantuk, N., Gröner, G., Pan, J.Z.: Reasoning in Metamodeling Enabled Ontologies. In: Proceeding of the International Workshop on OWL: Experience and Directions, OWL-ED 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaneiwa, K., Satoh, K.: Consistency checking algorithms for restricted UML class diagrams. In: Dix, J., Hegner, S.J. (eds.) FoIKS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3861, pp. 219–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malgouyres, H., Motet, G.: A UML Model Consistency Verification Approach based on Meta-Modeling Formalization. In: SAC 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1804–1809. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motik, B.: On the properties of metamodeling in owl. J. Log. Comput. 17(4), 617–637 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ober, I., Prinz, A.: What do we need metamodels for?Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 30–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Schreiber, G.: OWL FA: A Metamodeling Extension of OWL DL. In: Proceeding of the International Workshop on OWL: Experience and Directions, OWL-ED 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roe, D., Broda, K., Russo, A.: Department of Computing. Mapping UML models incorporating OCL constraints into Object-Z. In: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Department of Computing (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UML. Unified Modeling Language,
  15. 15.
    Welty, C.A., Ferrucci, D.A.: What’s in an instance? Technical report, RPI Computer Science (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nophadol Jekjantuk
    • 1
  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 1
  • Gerd Gröner
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AberdeenUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.University of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations