Model of information object for digital library and its verification

A.V. Novitsky, V.A. Reznichenko


An approach for formal verification of UML 2.0 using mapping OWL-DL in UML 2.0 is proposed. As a result, an original approach for mapping OWL-DL to UML 2.0 through description logic has been proposed. The completeness of the mapping of UML-OWL through stereotypes and labeled UML 2.0 values at the level of M0, M1 of the MOF metamodel is provided. A model of the information object (IO) for the semantic electronic library, which is described by using the UML language, is proposed. The proposed IO model was also verified by mapping it into OWL and then validating the constructed ontology by using risoners.

Problems in programming 2020; 2-3: 31-38


digital library; semantic digital library; linked data; information object; mapping UML-OWL; description logic; reasoning engine


Linked Dat, 07 2015.: Available from:

Berners-Lee T. Linked Data. 2009. Available from: [Accessed: 07 2015].

Sure Y., Studer R.. Semantic Web technologies for digital libraries. Library Management.2005. Vol. 4/5, N 26. P. 190-195. CrossRef

Alotaibi S. The 4th Saudi International Conference. In Semantic Web Technologies for Digital Libraries: From Libraries to Social Semantic Digital Libraries (SSDL), Over Semantic Digital Libraries (SDL). Manchester. 2010.

Daniela B., Diego C., Giuseppe D. Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence. 2005. Vol.168, N 1-2. CrossRef

McGregor John D., Sykes David A. A Practical Guide to Testing Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. 2001. 416 р.

Sturm A., Balaban M., A. Maraee. Management of Correctness Problems in UML Class Diagrams Towards a Pattern-Based Approach. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design. 2010. Vol. 1, N 4. P. 24-47. CrossRef

Thalheim B. Foundations of entity-relationship modeling. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. 1993. Vol. 7, N 1-4.


OMG's MetaObject Facility. Available from:

Volovich M.Е., Deryugina O.А. UML models of software systems verification. Cloud of Science. 2015. Vol. 2, N 1. P. 138-146.

Novitskyi O.V. Mapping UML classes to the description logic for object semantic modelling. Information, Communication, Society 2016: Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference ICS-2015, May 20-23, 2015, Ukraine, Lviv, Slavske, 2016. P. 62 - 63.

Andrea C., Diego C., Giuseppe D.G.. Maurizio L. A Formal Framework for Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems, т. 2366, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2012.

Cranefield D., Purvis A. 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99) In Uml as an ontology modelling language, 1999.

Brody T., Stamerjohanns H., Vallieres F., Harnad S., Yves G., Oppenheim C. National Policies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University Research Output: an International meeting. In The effect of Open Access on Citation Impact, Southampton, 2004.

Object Management Group. Available from:

Object Management Group, «Documents associated with Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) Version 1.0,» 05 2009. Available from: [Accessed: 07 2015].

Simmonds J. Consistency Maintenance of UML Models with Description Logics, 2003.

Novitskyi O.V. Extending UML specification for semantic objects modeling. Problems in programming. 2016. N 2-3. P. 211-219.

OMG Unified Modeling LanguageTM (OMG UML), Superstructure Version 2.4.1. Available from:

Scientific bases and theoretical and methodological principles of creation of modern encyclopedias: collective monograph / Ed. Dr. hist. sciences, prof. Kirydon A.M. - K.: State Scientific Institution "Encyclopedic Publishing House". 2015. 160 p.

Sirin E., Parsia B., Cuenca Grau B., Kalyanpur A., Yarden K. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics. 2007. Т. 5, N 2. P. 51-53. CrossRef

Shearer R, Motik B. Horrocks I. HermiT: A Highly-Efficient OWL Reasoner. OWLED. 2008. V. 432. P. 91.

Novitskyi O.V. Service-oriented distributed real-time systems in digital libraries (DL). Problems in programming. 2013. N 2. P. 87-94.



  • There are currently no refbacks.