Abstract
A generic relationship type is a relationship type that may have several realizations in a domain. Typical examples are IsPartOf, IsMemberOf or Materializes, but there are many others. The use of generic relationship types offers several important benefits. However, the achievement of these benefits requires an adequate representation method of the generic relationship types, and their realizations, in the conceptual schemas. In this paper, we propose two new alternative methods for this representation; we describe the contexts in which one or the other is more appropriate, and show their advantages over the current methods. We also explain the adaptation of the methods to the UML.
Chapter PDF
References
Cycorp. “ CYC® Ontology Guide”, http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/toc.html.
Dahchour, M. “Formalizing Materialization Using a Metaclass Approach”, CAiSE 1998, LNCS 1413, pp. 401–421.
Fowler, M. “Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models”, Addison-Wesley, 357 p.
Klass, W.; Schrefl, M. “Metaclasses and Their Application”, LNCS 943.
Mattos, N.M. “Abstraction Concepts: The Basis for Data and Knowledge Modeling”, ER 1988, pp. 473–492
Mylopoulos, J.; Borgida, A.; Jarke, M.; Koubarakis, M. “Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems”, TOIS 8(4), pp. 325–362.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R.; Storey, V.C. “Modelling of set Membership: The Notion and the Issues”, DKE 16(2), pp. 147–185.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R. “The Semantics of Parts Versus Aggregates in Data/Knowledge Modelling”, CAiSE 1993, LNCS 685, pp. 352–373.
Olivé, A. “Taxonomies and Derivation Rules in Conceptual Modelling”, CAiSE 2001, LNCS 2068, pp. 417–432.
Olivé, A. “Relationship Reification: A Temporal View”, CAiSE 1999, LNCS 1626, pp. 396–410.
OMG. “Unified Modeling Language Specification”, Version 1.4, September 2001, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
Pirotte, A.; Zimányi, E.; Dahchour, M. “Generic relationships in information modeling”, Technical Report TR-98/09, IAG-QANT, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, December.
Pirotte, A.; Zimányi, E.; Massart, D.; Yakusheva, T. “Materialization: A Powerful and Ubiquitous Abstraction Pattern”, VLDB 1994, pp. 630–641.
Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G. “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, Addison-Wesley, 550 p.
Sowa, J. “Knowledge Representation. Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations”, Brooks/Cole, 594 p.
Storey, V.C. “Understanding Semantic Relationships”, VLDB Journal 2(4), pp. 455–488.
Wand, Y.; Storey, V.C.; Weber, R. “An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling”, ACM TODS, 24(4), pp. 494–528.
Yang, O.; Halper, M.; Geller, J.; Perl, Y. “The OODB Ownership Relationship”, OOIS 1994, pp. 278–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Olivé, A. (2002). Representation of Generic Relationship Types in Conceptual Modeling. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2348. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_46
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43738-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47961-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive