=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2245/multi_paper_7
|storemode=property
|title=Multilevel Modeling: What's in a Level? A Position Paper
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2245/multi_paper_7.pdf
|volume=Vol-2245
|authors=Mira Balaban,Igal Khitron,Michael Kifer,Azzam Maraee
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/models/BalabanKKM18
}}
==Multilevel Modeling: What's in a Level? A Position Paper==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2245/multi_paper_7.pdf
Multilevel modeling: What’s in a level?
A position paper
Mira Balaban1 , Igal Khitron1 , Michael Kifer2 , Azzam Maraee1
1
Computer Science Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, ISRAEL
2
Computer Science Department, Stony Brook University NY, USA
{mira,khitron,mari}@cs.bgu.ac.il, kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu
Abstract. Multi-Level Modeling (MLM) conceptualizes software mod-
els as layered architectures of sub-models whose elements are inter-related
by the instance-of relation, which is radically different from the tradi-
tional two level representations that consist of a class model and an
instance model, where the former represents the schema and the latter
the population. Key to the MLM representation is the notion of a level,
which is the subject of this position paper. We argue that a theory of
MLM must have a distinguished notion of level, which should have both
a syntactic and a semantic status. Moreover, the notion of a level must
represent a class model, and the overall MLM theory must be composi-
tional, being composed from the theory of class models.
1 Introduction
Multilevel system modeling (MLM) views the enterprise as a layered collection
of models that are inter-related by the instance-of (or membership) relation
among objects and classes. The grounds for this approach are both philosophical
and pragmatic. On philosophical grounds, researchers have been arguing that
faithful modeling of real world domains cannot be restricted by the standard
two-layer architecture of the OMG meta-modeling approach. They claim that
natural domains have multiple levels of classification, and an artificial restriction
to two layers yields models that are too weak [3, 14]. On pragmatic grounds,
researchers have argued that a multilevel architecture of models simplifies the
management and evolution of complex software [4, 10, 12].
Classes and associations in adjacent layers in the multilevel architecture can
be related by the standard instance-of relationship, while within each layer,
classes are organized via subclass and general association relationships. A mul-
tilevel model consists of multiple, possibly overlapping, ontological dimensions,
each being a multilevel organization of classes and associations, as discussed
above. A potency mechanism, introduced in [2,11,19], is a kind of an inheritance
mechanism between levels.
Efforts to formulate multilevel modeling has led to a variety of approaches,
including a category-theory-based framework [19], a UML/OCL formulation
[13], multilevel objects and relationships [17, 18], an axiomatic specification of
multilevel types [9], a set-theoretic formulation [5], and more. Most approaches
have some form of an instance-of relation that stands for set membership, and
of subtyping relationship that stands for set inclusion.3
In [1] the authors claim that a multilevel framework can be either level
blind, i.e., enable multilevel arbitrary classification structures, as in Telos [16],
F-Logic [15] and FOML [6], or level adjuvant, i.e., recognize the utility of levels,
as in the aforementioned frameworks. In these approaches, a level is a numeric
attribute defined for all elements in a multilevel model, which enables layering
elements based on their level value. Yet, in most approaches the concept of a
level has no independent syntactic or semantic status.
The main theme of this position paper is the claim that a multilevel theory
must have a distinguished notion of level with both a syntactic and a semantic
status. Moreover, levels should reflect the traditional notion of a class model, and
the overall theory should be compositional with respect to class models, i.e., be
constructed—syntactically and semantically—from the theory of class models.
2 Multilevel Formalisms
In this section we analyze several published approaches to MLM with respect
to the following three questions: (1) Does the formalism include a clear and
well-defined syntax and semantics for multilevel models (the latter meaning well-
defined notion of legal instances)? (2) Does the formalism include a distinguished
syntactic and semantic notion of a level ? (3) Is the formalism compositional with
respect to the class model language?
The category-theory-based formulation of [19]. This approach formalizes the
MLM approach of [2, 11] using category theory. It supports a syntactic defi-
nition of layered class models, extended with a rich potency mechanism that
enables cross-level constraints and cross-level instantiation (termed here single
potency). The paper does not show how subtyping and standard class model con-
straints, like association classes, GS-constraints, aggregation/composition and
inter-association constraints are handled.
With respect to the above three questions: (1) this formalism provides a
formal definition of multilevel models, with deep constraints and cross-level in-
stantiation. It is unclear, however, what is the semantics of a multilevel model,
i.e., what is the set of legal instances. For example, what is a legal population
of a model at some level, say, L3? How it is related, if at all, to the syntactic
instances in level L2? (2) This formalism includes a distinguished syntactic no-
tion of level : The syntactic elements of a level form a valid instance of the next
higher level, that functions as its class model. Yet, the semantic status of a level
is left unclear. (3) The formalism is syntactically compositional.
The UML/OCL constraint-based approach of [13]. This paper suggests formula-
tion of MLM using UML/OCL. The idea is to join metamodels of several levels
3
Some languages that support these relationships are Telos [16] and the executable
logic language FOML [6], which is derived from Flogic [15].
into a single model, using a concept of superstructure, which is modeled using
generalizations, associations and UML/OCL constraints.
With respect to the above three questions: (1) Syntax and semantics are
given by UML/OCL; (2) elements are assigned a level, but there is no syntactic
unit that combines all elements with a common level value, and assigns it a
semantic status; (3) the formalism is not compositional.
The multilevel objects and relationships approach of [17,18]. This approach sug-
gests a representation that is based on constructs that integrate views at different
abstraction levels. An overall model consists of interrelated clabject hierarchies,
in which clabjects are classified into different abstraction levels. The representa-
tion is formulated and implemented in F-logic [15].
With respect to the above three questions, the approach is similar to the
previous one: (1) syntax and semantics are given by the definition of abstraction
hierarchies and the F-Logic translation; (2) elements are assigned to an abstrac-
tion level, but there is no syntactic/semantic unit of level; (3) the formalism is
not compositional.
The FOL axiomatization of multilevel domains in [9]. This paper presents an
axiomatic FOL specification of a domain of types. The domain is structured in
linearly ordered levels, starting from an initial level of individuals. A level is a
set of all types whose elements belong to a lower level.
Concerning our three questions: (1) the paper deals only with axiomatization
of sets of instances at each level and their types; (2) there is a distinguished
semantic notion of level; (3) the compositionality issue does not apply, since this
approach lacks a concrete language for MLM.
The set-theoretic MLM theory in [5]. The formal executable theory for MLM is
based on set-theoretic semantics of class models [7,8]. Class models are combined
to form ontological dimensions, which are the backbone of a multilevel model.
The formal theory has a direct semantics for multilevel models, which accounts
for complex model interactions, including deep constraints and inference. Legal
instances are defined using Herbrand instances in which the syntactic symbols
comprise the semantic domain. The MLM theory is seamlessly embedded in a
provably correct way into the executable logic language FOML [6].
Regarding our three questions, the answers are all positive, owed in part to
the distinguished syntactic and semantic status of the concept of a level. A level
is represented by a schema, which is a pair of an instance model and a class
model. The instance model is syntactically included in the class model, using a
mapping, called a Herbrand mediator, of objects to classes, links to associations,
and property renaming. This enables renaming of properties and classes between
levels, which is absolute necessity for practical applications of MLM. In addition,
the instance model of a level is required to be a partial instance of the class
model in the next higher level. This partiality is important for proper semantics
of potency, but we have no room to expand on this issue here.
The semantics of a multilevel ontological dimension defines a legal instance
of a syntactically correct dimension as a sequence of legal instances of the class
models in the schemas, where (1) an instance of the class model in level i must
include the instance model in level i − 1 (which is a partial instance of this
class model); and (2) satisfy all cross-level constraints in higher level schemas.
Therefore, the formalism has a well-defined syntax and semantics, a distinguished
notion of level, and is compositional with respect to class models.
3 On the Necessity of Level-based Compositional Theory
for Multilevel Modeling
Much of the literature on MLM is plagued by a confusion between true multilevel
modeling in which levels correspond to class models with each level being a
partial instance of the next, and modeling that is simply based on formalisms
with higher-order features where classes are uniformly treated as objects that
can be members of other (meta)classes (like in F-logic [15], RDF, Telos [16],
etc.). With respect to the approaches discussed in Section 2, an example of the
former kind of true MLM is [5], while [13] is an example of the latter kind of
approaches (which, in our view, are not truly MLM). Approaches in the middle of
the spectrum, which attempt to include the concept of a level (with partial or no
semantics), are [9, 19]. [17, 18] has a level notion that prevents compositionality
with respect to class models.
We claim that MLM is much more than just a class model with higher or-
der features and constraints. It is a collection of levels bound together by the
instance-of relation, where each level is a class model, not just a numeric at-
tribute. Besides the instance-of relations, inter-level mediation includes termi-
nology changing mappings that permit renaming of concepts. Thus, levels should
be expressed both syntactically and semantically as an integral part of the struc-
ture. A compositional4 MLM theory on top of class models turns MLM into a
natural extension of the class model in two ways: (1) a class model is a degenerate
case of a simple MLM; (2) a composite multilevel model consists—syntactically
and semantically—of class models and the theory of MLM should reuse the the-
ory of class models. Thus, in [5] we define consistency, finite satisfiability and
optimization of MLM as natural extensions of their class model variants, and
show that intra-layer correctness and optimization can be checked using class
model algorithms.
References
1. C. Atkinson, R. Gerbig, and T. Kuehne. Comparing Multi-Level Modeling Ap-
proaches. In MULTI 2014, 2014.
4
By compositionality we mean that the semantics of MLM consists of the semantics
of the class models of the layers, properly stitched together by inter-level relations.
2. C. Atkinson and T. Kühne. The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In UML,
pages 19–33. Springer, 2001.
3. C. Atkinson and T. Kühne. Rearchitecting the uml infrastructure. ACM Trans.
Model. Comput. Simul., 12(4):290–321, Oct. 2002.
4. C. Atkinson and T. Kühne. Reducing accidental complexity in domain models.
Software & Systems Modeling, 7(3):345–359, 2008.
5. M. Balaban, I. Khitron, M. Kifer, and A. Maraee. Formal executable theory of
multilevel modeling. In CAISE, 2018.
6. M. Balaban and M. Kifer. Logic-Based Model-Level Software Development with
F-OML. In MoDELS 2011, 2011.
7. M. Balaban and A. Maraee. Finite Satisfiability of UML Class Diagrams with
Constrained Class Hierarchy. ACM TOSEM, 22(3):24:1–24:42, 2013.
8. M. Balaban and A. Maraee. UML Class Diagram: Abstract syntax and Semantics.
https://goo.gl/UJzsjb, 2017.
9. V. A. Carvalho and J. P. A. Almeida. Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level
conceptual modeling. Software & Systems Modeling, 17(1):205–231, 2018.
10. J. de Lara, E. Guerra, R. Cobos, and J. Moreno-Llorena. Extending deep meta-
modelling for practical mde. The Computer Journal, 57(1):36–58, 2014.
11. J. de Lara, E. Guerra, and J. S. Cuadrado. Model-driven engineering with domain-
specific meta-modelling languages. SoSyM, 14(1):429–459, 2013.
12. J. de Lara, E. Guerra, and J. S. Cuadrado. When and how to use multilevel
modelling. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 24(2):12:1–12:46, Dec. 2014.
13. M. Gogolla, M. Sedlmeier, L. Hamann, and F. Hilken. On metamodel superstruc-
tures employing UML generalization features. In MULTI’2014, 2014.
14. B. Henderson-Sellers. On the mathematics of modelling, metamodelling, ontologies
and modelling languages. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
15. M. Kifer, L. G., and J. Wu. Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based
languages. Journal of the ACM, 42(4):741–843, 1995.
16. J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: Representing
knowledge about information systems. ACM TOIS, 8(4):325–362, 1990.
17. B. Neumayr, K. Grün, and M. Schrefl. Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects
and m-relationships. In APCCM 2009, 2009.
18. B. Neumayr, C. G. Schuetz, M. A. Jeusfeld, and M. Schrefl. Dual deep modeling:
MLM with dual potencies and its formalization in F-Logic. SoSyM, pages 233–268,
2018.
19. A. Rossini, J. de Lara, E. Guerra, A. Rutle, and Y. Lamo. A graph transformation-
based semantics for deep metamodelling. In Applications of Graph Transformations
with Industrial Relevance. Springer, 2012.