An ontological metamodeling framework for semantic simulation model engineering

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2020.000032

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2020, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (3): 527-538.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2020.000032

• Systems Engineering • Previous Articles Next Articles

An ontological metamodeling framework for semantic simulation model engineering

Yonglin LEI(), Zhi ZHU*(), Qun LI()

School of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

Received:2019-12-18 Online:2020-06-30 Published:2020-06-30
Contact: Zhi ZHU E-mail:yllei@nudt.edu.cn;zhuzhi@nudt.edu.cn;liqun@nudt.edu.cn
About author:LEI Yonglin was born in 1978. He received his Ph.D. degree in management science and engineering from National University of Defense Technology in 2006. He is now a professor at National University of Defense Technology. He was also a visiting scholar at Arizona State University. His research interests are complex system modeling & simulation, model-driven engineering and simulation composability. E-mail: yllei@nudt.edu.cn|ZHU Zhi was born in 1989. He received his M.S. degree in control science and engineering and Ph.D. degree in military equipment from National University of Defense Technology in 2013 and 2018, respectively. He is now an assistant professor at National University of Defense Technology. He was also a visiting Ph.D. student at Arizona State University. His research interests are language-driven development and system engineering. E-mail: zhuzhi@nudt.edu.cn|LI Qun was born in 1971. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in management science and engineering from National University of Defense Technology in 1995 and 1997, respectively. He is now a professor at National University of Defense Technology. He was also a visiting scholar at Nanyang Technological University. His research interests are software engineering, simulation-based design and agent-based simulation. E-mail: liqun@nudt.edu.cn
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(61273198);This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61273198)

Abstract

Abstract:

Recently, the ontological metamodel plays an increasingly important role to specify systems in two forms: ontology and metamodel. Ontology is a descriptive model representing reality by a set of concepts, their interrelations, and constraints. On the other hand, metamodel is a more classical, but more powerful model in which concepts and relationships are represented in a prescriptive way. This study firstly clarifies the difference between the two approaches, then explains their advantages and limitations, and attempts to explore a general ontological metamodeling framework by integrating each characteristic, in order to implement semantic simulation model engineering. As a proof of concept, this paper takes the combat effectiveness simulation systems as a motivating case, uses the proposed framework to define a set of ontological composable modeling frameworks, and presents an underwater targets search scenario for running simulations and analyzing results. Finally, this paper expects that this framework will be generally used in other fields.

Key words: ontology, metamodeling, semantic composability, model-driven engineering (MDE)

Yonglin LEI, Zhi ZHU, Qun LI. An ontological metamodeling framework for semantic simulation model engineering[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(3): 527-538.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Table 1

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Fig 9

References 35

1	ZEIGLER B P. How can modeling and simulation help engineering of system of systems? Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, 2017.
2	SARJOUGHIAN H S. Model composability. Proc. of the 38th Conference on Winter Simulation, 2006, 149- 158.
3	SZABO C, TEO Y M. On syntactic composability and model reuse. Proc. of the 1st Asia International Conference on Modeling and Simulation, 2007, 230- 237.
4	SZABO C, TEO Y M. An analysis of the cost of validating semantic composability. Journal of Simulation, 2012, 6 (3): 152- 163. doi: 10.1057/jos.2012.11
5	IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 1516-2010-standard for modeling and simulation high level architecture-framework and rules. http://www.ieee.org/HLA.
6	European Space Agency. SMP 2.0 handbook. http://www.eurosim.nl/support/manuals/manual_4_2/pdf/SMP_2.0_Meta-model-1.2.pdf.
7	ZEIGLER B P, PRAEHOFER H, KIM T G. Theory of modeling and simulation: integrating discrete event and continuous complex dynamic systems. 2nd ed New York: Academic Press, 2000.
8	TENDELOO Y V, VANGHELUWE H S. Classic DEVS mo- delling and simulation. Proc. of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2017, 644- 658.
9	AZAR M C. Assessing the treatment of airborne tactical high energy lasers in combat simulations. Dayton, U.S.A.: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2003.
10	MILLER J O, JASON L, HONABARGER B. Modeling and measuring network centric warfare (NCW) with the system effectiveness analysis simulation (SEAS). Proc. of the 11th International Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium, 2006, 1- 22.
11	HALL S B, ZEIGLER B P, SARJOUGHIAN H S. Joint measure TM: distributed simulation issues in a mission effectiveness analytic simulator. Proc. of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, 1999, 1- 7.
12	LEI Y L, LI Q, YANG F, et al. A composable modeling framework for weapon systems effectiveness simulation. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2013, 33 (11): 2954- 2966.
13	PIDD M. Tools for thinking-modeling in management science. New York: Wiley, 2009.
14	Object Management Group. MDA guide. http://www.omg.org/mda.
15	SEIDEWITZ E D. What models mean?. IEEE Software, 2003, 20 (5): 26- 32. doi: 10.1109/MS.2003.1231147
16	FAVRE J M, NGUYEN T. Towards a megamodel to model software evolution through transformations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2005, 127 (3): 59- 74. doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2004.08.034
17	AßMANN U, ZSCHALER S, WANNER G. Ontlogies, meta-models, and model-driven paradigm. New York: Springer Verlag, 2006.
18	SELIC B. A systematic approach to domain-specific language design using UML. Proc. of the 10th IEEE Internatinal Symposium on Object and Component-oriented Real-time Distributed Computing, 2007, 2- 9.
19	NORDSTROM G, SZTIPANOVITS J, KARSAI G, et al. Metamodeling-rapid design and evolution of domain-specific modeling environments. Proc. of IEEE Conference on Engineering of Computer-based Systems, 1999, 68- 74.
20	LEI Y L, ZHU N, YAO J, et al. Model-architecture oriented combat system effectiveness simulation. Proc. of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2015, 3190- 3191.
21	HAPPEL H J, KORTHAUS A, SEEDORF S, et al. KontoR: an ontology-enabled approach to software reuse. Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, 2006, 349- 354.
22	ÇETINKAYA D. Model driven development of simulation models: defining and transforming conceptual models into simulation models by using metamodels and model transformations. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University, 2003.
23	HITZ M, KESSEL T. Using application ontologies for the automatic generation of user interfaces for dialog-based applications. Proc. of Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems, 2016, 16- 31.
24	TUENO S, LALEAU R, MAMMAR A, et al. Towards using ontologies for domain modeling within the SysML/KAOS approach. Proc. of the 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops, 2017, 1- 5.
25	ATKINSON C, KUHNE T. Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Software, 2003, 20 (5): 36- 41. doi: 10.1109/MS.2003.1231149
26	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, SARJOUGHIAN H S, et al. UML-based combat effectiveness simulationsystem modeling within MDE. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29 (6): 1180- 1196. doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.06.07
27	LACKO P, KAJSA P, NAVRAT P. Design pattern instances within model driven development based on abstraction, concretization and variability. Computing and Informatics, 2017, 36 (1): 55- 85. doi: 10.4149/cai_2017_1_55
28	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, LI Q, et al. Exploring MDE techniques for engineering simulation models. Wireless Networks, 2020, 26 (4): 1- 12.
29	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, ZHU N, et al. Composable modeling frameworks for networked air & missile defense systems. Journal of National University of Defense Technology, 2014, 36 (5): 186- 190.
30	SMIRNOV P A, KOVALCHUK S V, DUKHANOV A V. Domain ontologies integration for virtual modelling and simulation environments. Procedia Computer Science, 2014, 29 (1): 2507- 2514.
31	BENJAMIN P, AKELLA K, VERMA A. Using ontologies for simulation integration. Proc. of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2007, 1081- 1089.
32	ABDULAH M S. A UML profile for conceptual modeling of knowledge-based systems. York, U.K.: University of York, 2006.
33	Protégé. Plugin Anatomy. http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/PluginAnatomy.
34	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, ZHU Y F. Model-driven combat effectiveness simulation systems engineering. Defence Science Journal, 2020, 70 (1): 54- 59. doi: 10.14429/dsj.70.12777
35	LEI Y L, ZHU Z, LI Q, et al. WESS: a generic combat effectiveness simulation system. Proc. of the 17th Asia Simulation Conference, 2017, 272- 283.

OWL Lite	UML	UML profile	Mathematical semantics
Symmetric	Literal	Tagged values	$Po_1 \to Po_2 \Rightarrow Po_2 \to Po_1 $
Asymmetric	Literal	Tagged values	$Po_1 \to Po_2 \Rightarrow \neg (Po_2 \to Po_1)$
Reflexive	Literal	Tagged values	$Po_1 \in Po_2 \in Po_3, \ldots, \in Po_n $
Irreflexive	Literal	Tagged values	$\neg (Po_1 \in Po_2 \in Po_3, \ldots, \in Po_n)$
maxCardinality	Multiplicity	$ < $UML2 kernel$ > $	$ {\leqslant} n.P$
minCardinality	Multiplicity	$ < $UML2 kernel$ > $	$ {\geqslant} n.P$
exactCardinality	Multiplicity	$ < $UML2 kernel$ > $	$ = n$
HasValue Restriction	Association	Stereotype	$\exists P$
UnionOfRelation	Association	Stereotype	$R_1 \cup \cdots \cup R_n $
NonUnionOfRelation	Association	Stereotype	$\neg (R_1 \cup \cdots \cup R_n) $

[1]	Weijian PANG, Hui LI, Xinyi MA, Hailin ZHANG. A semantic-centered cloud control framework for autonomous unmanned system [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(4): 771-784.
[2]	Yonglin Lei, Ning Zhu, Jian Yao, Hessam Sarjoughian, and Weiping Wang. Model architecture-oriented combat system effectiveness simulation based on MDE [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 28(5): 900-922.
[3]	Weixing Zhu, Zhixue Wang, Guolin Hou, and Minggang Yu. Capability-based context ontology modeling and reasoning for C4ISR communication [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 27(4): 845-.
[4]	Huijiao Bu, Jin Zhang, and Yazhong Luo. Space station short-term mission planning using ontology modelling and time iteration [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 27(2): 407-421.
[5]	Qingchao Dong, Zhixue Wang, Weixing Zhu, and Hongyue He. Capability requirements modeling and verification based on fuzzy ontology [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2012, 23(1): 78-87.
[6]	Chen Jia & Wu Yue. Rules-based object-relational databases ontology construction [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2009, 20(1): 211-215.
[7]	Zheng Liping, Li Guangyao, Liang Yongquan & Sha Jing. Design of ontology mapping framework and improvement of similarity computation [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2007, 18(3): 641-645.

An ontological metamodeling framework for semantic simulation model engineering

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 35

Related Articles 7

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments