OCL\(_\textsf {UNIV}\): Expressive UML/OCL Conceptual Schemas for Finite Reasoning

  • Xavier OriolEmail author
  • Ernest Teniente
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10650)


Full UML/OCL is so expressive that most reasoning tasks are known to be undecidable in schemas defined with these languages. To tackle this situation, literature has proposed mainly three decidable fragments of UML/OCL: UML with no OCL, UML with limited OCL and no maximum cardinality constraints (OCL-Lite), and UML with limited OCL with no minimum cardinality constraints (OCL\(_\textsf {UNIV}\)). Since most conceptual schemas make use of OCL together with min and max cardinalities, this poses a strong limitation to current proposals. In this paper, we go beyond these limits by showing that OCL\(_\textsf {UNIV}\) with acyclic min cardinality constraints and path acyclicity constraints also preserves decidability. In this way, we establish a language that can deal with most of UML/OCL identified constraint patterns. We also empirically test the expressiveness of this language through different UML/OCL case studies.


UML OCL Decidability Reasoning 



This work is supported by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, project TIN2014-52938-C2-2-R and by the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya, project 2014 SGR 1534.


  1. 1.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML conceptual schemas with OCL constraints. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 21(2), 13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Queralt, A., Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Teniente, E.: OCL-Lite: finite reasoning on UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 73, 1–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E., Tort, A.: Computing repairs for constraint violations in UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 99, 39–58 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costal, D., Gómez, C., Queralt, A., Raventós, R., Teniente, E.: Improving the definition of general constraints in UML. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(4), 469–486 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rull, G., Farré, C., Queralt, A., Teniente, E., Urpí, T.: AuRUS: explaining the validation of UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(2), 953–980 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.: The chase revisited. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems PODS 2008, pp. 149–158. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E.: Incremental checking of OCL constraints through SQL queries. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling, pp. 23–32 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tort, A.: (The osCommerce case study).
  11. 11.
    Tort, A., Olivé, A.: (The sudoku case study).
  12. 12.
    Planas, E., Olivé, A.: The DBLP case study (2006).
  13. 13.
    Estañol, M., Queralt, A., Sancho, M.R., Teniente, E.: EU-rent car rentals specification. Technical report, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2012).
  14. 14.
    Hartmann, S.: On the consistency of int-cardinality constraints. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 150–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-49524-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahler, M., Basin, D., Brucker, A.D., Koehler, J.: Efficient analysis of pattern-based constraint specifications. Softw. Syst. Model. 9(2), 225–255 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hartmann, S., Köhler, H., Leck, U., Link, S., Thalheim, B., Wang, J.: Constructing armstrong tables for general cardinality constraints and not-null constraints. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 73(1–2), 139–165 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 14, 57–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations