Evolving Partitions in Conceptual Schemas in the UML

  • Cristina Gómez
  • Antoni Olivé
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)


The evolution of information systems from their conceptual schemas is an important research area in information systems engineering. In this paper, we aim at contributing to the area by focusing on a particular conceptual modeling construct, the partitions. We analyze the evolution of partitions in conceptual schemas of information systems. We deal with conceptual models with multiple specialization and classification, and consider whether entity types are base or derived. We provide a list of possible schema changes and, for each of them, we give its preconditions, and its effects on the schema, taking into account the state of the information base. In this paper, we deal with conceptual schemas in the UML. However, the results reported here should be applicable to most conceptual modeling languages and also to object-oriented database schemas.


Conceptual Schema Entity Type Derivation Rule Information System Evolution Covering Constraint 
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.


  1. 1.
    Al-Jadir, L.; Léonard, M. “Multiobjects to Ease Schema Evolution in an OODBMS”, Proc. ER’98, Singapore, LNCS 1507, Springer, pp. 316–333.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade, L.F.; Fiadeiro, J.L. “Coordination Technologies for Managing Information System Evolution”, CAiSE 2001, LNCS 2068, pp. 374–387.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, J.; Chou, H-T.; Garza, J.F.; Kim, W.; Woelk, D.; Ballou, N. “Data Model Issues for Object-Oriented Applications”. ACM TOIS Vol. 5, No. 1, January, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Champeaux, D.; Lea, D.; Faure, P. “Object-Oriented System Development”, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franconi, E.; Grandi, F.; Mandreoli, F. “Schema Evolution and Versioning: A Logical and Computational Characterisation”, In Balsters, H.; de Brock, B.; Conrad, S. (eds.) “Database Schema Evolution and Meta-Modeling”, LNCS 2065, pp. 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gómez, C, Olivé A; “Evolving Partitions in Conceptual Schemas in the UML (Extended Version)”, Technical Report UPC, LSI-02-15-R.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goralwalla, I.; Szafron, D.; Özsu, T.; Peters, R. “A Temporal Approach to Managing Schema Evolution in Object Database Systems”. Data&Knowledge Eng. 28(1), October, pp. 73–105.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hainaut, J-L.; Englebert, V.; Henrard, J.; Hick, J-M.; Roland, D. “Database Evolution: the DB-MAIN Approach”. 13th. Intl. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach-ER’94, LNCS 881, Springer-Verlag, pp. 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3. “Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base”, J.J. van Griethuysen (ed.), March.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    López, J-R.; Olivé, A. “A Framework for the Evolution of Temporal Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems”, CAiSE 2000, LNCS 1789, pp. 369–386.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manthey, R. “Beyond Data Dictionaries: Towards a Reflective Architecture of Intelligent Database Systems”, DOOD’93, Springer-Verlag, pp. 328–339.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mens, T.; D’Hondt, T. “Automating Support for Software Evolution in UML”, Automated Software Engineering, 7, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olivé, A.; Costal, D.; Sancho, M-R. “Entity Evolution in ISA Hierarchies”, ER’99, LNCS 1728, pp. 62–80.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olivé, A. “Taxonomies and Derivation Rules in Conceptual Modelling”, CAiSE 2001, LNCS 2068, pp. 417–432.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. “Unified Modeling Language Specification”, Version 1.4, September 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Opdyke, W.F. “Refactoring object-oriented frameworks”, PhD thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters, R.J.; Özsu, T. “Reflection in a Uniform Behavioral Object Model”. Proc. ER’93, Arlington, LNCS 823, Springer-Verlag, pp. 34–45.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters, R.J., Özsu, M.T. “An Axiomatic Model of Dynamic Schema Evolution in Objectbase Systems”, ACM TODS, 22(1), pp. 75–114.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roddick, J.F. “A Survey of Schema Versioning Issues for Database Systems”, Inf. Softw. Technol, 37(7), pp. 383–393.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G. “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, Addison-Wesley, 550 p.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, J.M.; Smith, D.C.P. “Database Abstractions: Aggregation and Generalization”. ACM TODS, 2, 2, pp. 105–133.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sunyé, G.; Pennaneac’h, F.; Ho, W-M.; Le Guennec, Al; Jézéquel, J-M. “Using UML Action Semantics for Executable Modeling and Beyond”, CAiSE 2001, LNCS 2068, pp. 433–447.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tokuda, L.; Batory, D. “Evolving Object-Oriented Designs with Refactorings”, Automated Software Engineering, 8, pp. 89–120.339Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tresch, M.; Scholl, M.H. “Meta Object Management and its Application to Database Evolution”, 11th. Intl. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach-ER’92, LNCS 645, Springer-Verlag, pp. 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wieringa, R.; de Jonge, W.; Spruit, P. “Using Dynamic Classes and Role Classes to Model Object Migration”, TPOS, Vol 1(1), pp. 61–83.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zicari, R. “A Framework for Schema Updates in Object-Oriented Database System”, in Bancilhon, F.; Delobel, C; Kanellakis, P. (ed.) “Building an Object-Oriented Database System-The Story of O2”, Morgan Kaufmann Pub., pp. 146–182.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Gómez
    • 1
  • Antoni Olivé
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformáticsUniversitat Politécnica CatalunyaBarcelona (Catalonia)

Personalised recommendations