Relationship Type Refinement in Conceptual Models with Multiple Classification

  • Dolors Costal
  • Antoni Olivé
  • Ernest Teniente
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2224)


The definition of a relationship type includes its participant entity types and the cardinality constraints. Relationship type refinement is the specification of additional constraints when some of the participant entities are also instances of other entity types. The best known types of refinements are refinement of participants and refinement of cardinality constraints.

These refinements have been studied, up to now, only for conceptual models with single classification. In this paper we extend previous work by dealing with conceptual models with multiple classification. We characterize the refinements in this context, provide a graphical and textual notation for their specification, and give their formal definition in logical terms. Moreover, we provide a set of necessary conditions to guarantee that a given set of refinements is valid.


Conceptual Schema Entity Type Integrity Constraint Single Classification Relationship Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BCN92]
    C. Batini; S. Ceri; S.B. Navathe. •Conceptual Database Design: an Entity-Relationship Approach•. The Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [BG95]
    E. Bertino; G. Guerrini. “Objects with Multiple Most Specific Classes”. ECOOP 1995, pp. 102–126.Google Scholar
  3. [BS95]
    R.J. Brachman; J.G. Schmolze. “An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System”. Cognitive Science, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 1995, pp. 171–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BO92]
    S.E. Bratsberg; E. Odberg. “Relation Refinement in Object-Relation Data Models.” Nordic Workshop on Programming and Software Development Research, Tampere (Finland), 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [Bub77]
    J.A. Bubenko. “The Temporal Dimension in Information Modelling”. In Architecture and Models in Data Base Management Systems. North-Holland, 1977, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
  6. [CD94]
    S. Cook; J. Daniels. “Designing Object Systems: Object-Oriented Modeling with Syntropy”. Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [CLF93]
    D. de Champeaux; D. Lea; P. Faure. “Object-Oriented System Development”. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [Len87]
    M. Lenzerini. “Covering and Disjointness Constraints in Type Networks“. Int. Conf. On Data Engineering, Los Angeles (California), 1987, pp. 386–393.Google Scholar
  9. [LEW93]
    S.W. Liddle, D.W. Embley, S.N. Woodfield. “Cardinality Constraints in Semantic Data Models”.Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 11, 1993, pp. 235–270.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [MBW80]
    J. Mylopoulos, P.A. Bernstein, H.K.T. Wong. “A Language Facility for Designing Database-Intensive Applications”. TODS, Vol. 5, Num. 2, 1980, pp. 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [MM92]
    R. Motschnig-Pitrik; J. Mylopoulos. “Classes and Instances”, Int. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [MO95]
    J. Martin; J. Odell. “Objects-Oriented Methods: a Foundation”. Prentice-Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [OCS99]
    A. Olivé, D. Costal, M.R. Sancho. “Entity Evolution in ISA Hierarchies”. Int. Conf. On Conceptual Modeling (ER.99), Paris (France), 1999, pp. 62–80.Google Scholar
  14. [RBP+91]
    J. Rumbaugh; M. Blaha; W. Premerlani et al. “Object-Oriented Modelling and Design”, Prentice-Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [RJB99]
    J. Rumbaugh; I. Jacobson and G. Booch. “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [SCG+]
    F. Saltor; M. Castellanos; M. Garcia et al. “Modelling Specialization as BLOOM Semilattices”. In Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, IOS Press, Vol. VI, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [WJS95]
    R. Wieringa; W. de Jong; P. Spruit. “Using Dynamic Classes and Role Classes to Model Object Migration”. Theory and Practice of Object Systems (TAPOS), Vol. 1(1), pp. 61–83, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dolors Costal
    • 1
  • Antoni Olivé
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona (Catalonia)

Personalised recommendations