Abstract
Conceptual schemas (CS) are core elements of information systems knowledge. A challenging issue in the management processes is to allow decision makers, such as business people, to directly define and refine their schemas using a pseudo-natural language. The recently published Semantics for Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR) is a good candidate for an intermediate layer: it offers an abstract syntax able to express a CS, as well as a concrete syntax based on structured English. In this article, we propose an original method for extracting a SBVR terminal model out of a controlled English text and then transform it into a UML class diagram. We describe a model-driven engineering approach in which constraint-programming based search is combined with model transformation. The use of an advanced resolution technique (configuration) as an operation on models allows for non-deterministic parsing and language flexibility. In addition to the theoretical results, preliminary experiments on a running example are provided.
Empirical results category paper.
Work partially funded by the French ANR IdM++ project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT) Specification, version 1.0 (2008)
Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) 1.0 specification (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
Schwitter, R., Fuchs, N.E.: Attempto controlled english (ace) a seemingly informal bridgehead in formal territory. In: JICSLP, p. 536 (1996)
Kaljurand, K.: Ace view - an ontology and rule editor based on controlled english. In: International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demos). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 401, CEUR-WS.org (2008)
JRules (2009), http://www.ilog.fr/products/jrules/
Drools (2009), http://www.jboss.org/drools/
Junker, U.: 26. In: Configuration. Volume Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)
Mittal, S., Falkenhainer, B.: Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1990, pp. 25–32 (1990)
Stumptner, M., Haselböck, A.: A generative constraint formalism for configuration problems. In: Advances in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of AI*IA 1993, pp. 302–313. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Sabin, D., Freuder, E.C.: Composite constraint satisfaction. In: AI and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, pp. 153–161 (1996)
Stumptner, M.: An overview of knowledge-based configuration. AI Communications 10(2), 111–125 (1997)
Soininen, T., Niemela, I., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Representing configuration knowledge with weight constraint rules. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symp. on Answer Set Programming, pp. 195–201 (2001)
Mailharro, D.: A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. AI in Engineering, Design and Manufacturing (12), 383–397 (1998)
Junker, U., Mailharro, D.: The logic of (j)configurator: Combining constraint programming with a description logic. In: IJCAI 2003. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Estratat, M., Henocque, L.: Parsing languages with a configurator. In: Proceedings of the European Conference for Artificial Intelligence ECAI 2004, August 2004, pp. 591–595 (2004)
Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D., Zanker, M.: Configuration knowledge representation using uml/ocl. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: Km3: A dsl for metamodel specification. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Kittredge, R.I.: Sublanguages and controlled languages. Oxford Press (2003)
Blache, P., Balfourier, J.-M.: Property grammars: a flexible constraint-based approach to parsing. In: IWPT. Tsinghua University Press (2001)
EMF (2009), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/
Cabot, J., Pau, R., Raventós, R.: From uml/ocl to sbvr specifications: a challenging transformation. In: Information Systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2009)
Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Umltocsp: a tool for the formal verification of uml/ocl models using constraint programming. In: ASE, pp. 547–548. ACM, New York (2007)
Dinh-Trong, T.T., Ghosh, S., France, R.B.: A systematic approach to generate inputs to test uml design models. In: ISSRE, pp. 95–104. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)
Jackson, D.: Automating first-order relational logic. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 130–139 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kleiner, M., Albert, P., Bézivin, J. (2009). Parsing SBVR-Based Controlled Languages . In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5795. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04424-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04425-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)