Domain-specific modeling and verification for C4ISR capability requirements

Abstract

An approach was proposed to specify the C4ISR capability of domain-specific modeling language. To confine the domain modeling within a standard architecture framework, formally a C4ISR capability meta-ontology was defined according to the meta-model of DoD Architecture Framework. The meta-ontology is used for extending UML Profile so that the domain experts can model the C4ISR domains using the C4ISR capability meta-concepts to define a domain-specific modeling language. The domain models can be then checked to guarantee the consistency and completeness through converting the UML models into the Description Logic ontology and making use of inference engine Pellet to verify the ontology.

Keywords

C4ISR capability / meta-ontology / domain-specific modeling / description logic

References

[1] Joint Chief of Staff. CJCSI3170.01D. Joint capabilities integration and development system [S/OL] 2005. http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/index.htm.

[2] CAPDEM T D. Collaborative capability definition engineering and management technology demonstrator [S/OL]. 2010. http://www.drev.dnd.ca/poolpdf/e/162_e.pdf.

[3] The Open Group. Part III: ADM guidelines and techniques, TOGAF version 9 [S/OL] 2009. http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9/downloads.htm.

[4] DavisP., ShaverR., BeckJ.Portfolio-analysis methods for assessing capability options [R], 2008USRAND Corporation

[5] JOSEFSSON A, MARKLUND J. IDC2-A new C2 concept within the framework of a network based defence concept [C]// Proc of 13th Int Conf on Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Seattle, 2008: 1–19.

[6] AUGER A, GOUIN D, ROY J. Decision support and knowledge exploitation technologies for C4ISR [EB/OL] 2006. Technical Memorandum, http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc52/p525876.pdf.

[7] CHEN Z, POOLEY R. Rediscovering Zachman framework using ontology from a requirement engineering perspective [C]// Proc of 33th Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Washington, 2009: 3–8.

[8] BraheS., ØsterbyeK.. Business process modeling: Defining domain specific modeling languages by use of UML profiles [J]. Journal of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006, 4066(1): 241-255

[9] PohjonenR.. Metamodeling made easy-MetaEdit+ (tool demonstration) [J]. Journal of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, 3676(1): 442-446

[10] UK Ministry of Defence. Mod architecture framework overview version 1.0 (MODAF-M09-002) [S/OL] 2005. http:// www.modaf.org.uk/.

[11] US Department of Defense. DoD architecture framework version 2.0 (Volume I-II-III) [S/OL] 2009. http://www.us.army.mi/suite/page/454707 MOD Partner.

[12] GiancarloG., LuisF., MartenV.. An ontology-based approach for evaluating the domain appropriateness and comprehensibility appropriateness of modeling languages [J]. Journal of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, 3713(1): 691-705

[13] HORROCKS I, PATRL P F. Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability [J]. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004: 345–357.

[14] KimD. K., RobertF., SudiptoG.. A UML-based language for specifying domain-specific patterns [J]. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 2004, 15(3): 265-289

[15] QueraltA., RullG., TenienteE., FarreC., UrpiT.. AuRUS: Automated Reasoning on UML/OCL Schemas [J]. Journal of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, 6412: 438-444

[16] CABOT J, CLARIS R, RIERA D. Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming [C]// Proc of 2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop. Lillehammer, 2008: 73–80.

[17] VanR.Inconsistency management in model-driven engineering [D], 2005BrusselsVrije University

[18] DanielaB.. Reasoning on UML class diagrams [J]. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 2005, 168(1): 70-118

[19] HorrocksI., SattlerU.. A tableau decision procedure for SHOIQ [J]. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2007, 39(3): 249-276.