Advertisement

Representation of Generic Relationship Types in Conceptual Modeling

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

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.

Keywords

Conceptual Modeling Project Team Conceptual Schema Entity Type Integrity 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.

References

  1. [Cyco97]
    Cycorp. “ CYC® Ontology Guide”, http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/toc.html.
  2. [Dach98]
    Dahchour, M. “Formalizing Materialization Using a Metaclass Approach”, CAiSE 1998, LNCS 1413, pp. 401–421.Google Scholar
  3. [Fowl97]
    Fowler, M. “Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models”, Addison-Wesley, 357 p.Google Scholar
  4. [KaSc95]
    Klass, W.; Schrefl, M. “Metaclasses and Their Application”, LNCS 943.Google Scholar
  5. [Matt88]
    Mattos, N.M. “Abstraction Concepts: The Basis for Data and Knowledge Modeling”, ER 1988, pp. 473–492Google Scholar
  6. [MBJK90]
    Mylopoulos, J.; Borgida, A.; Jarke, M.; Koubarakis, M. “Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems”, TOIS 8(4), pp. 325–362.Google Scholar
  7. [MoSt95]
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R.; Storey, V.C. “Modelling of set Membership: The Notion and the Issues”, DKE 16(2), pp. 147–185.Google Scholar
  8. [Mots93]
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R. “The Semantics of Parts Versus Aggregates in Data/Knowledge Modelling”, CAiSE 1993, LNCS 685, pp. 352–373.Google Scholar
  9. [Oliv01]
    Olivé, A. “Taxonomies and Derivation Rules in Conceptual Modelling”, CAiSE 2001, LNCS 2068, pp. 417–432.Google Scholar
  10. [Oliv99]
    Olivé, A. “Relationship Reification: A Temporal View”, CAiSE 1999, LNCS 1626, pp. 396–410.Google Scholar
  11. [OMG01]
    OMG. “Unified Modeling Language Specification”, Version 1.4, September 2001, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
  12. [PiZD98]
    Pirotte, A.; Zimányi, E.; Dahchour, M. “Generic relationships in information modeling”, Technical Report TR-98/09, IAG-QANT, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, December.Google Scholar
  13. [PZMY94]
    Pirotte, A.; Zimányi, E.; Massart, D.; Yakusheva, T. “Materialization: A Powerful and Ubiquitous Abstraction Pattern”, VLDB 1994, pp. 630–641.Google Scholar
  14. [RuJB99]
    Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G. “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, Addison-Wesley, 550 p.Google Scholar
  15. [Sowa00]
    Sowa, J. “Knowledge Representation. Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations”, Brooks/Cole, 594 p.Google Scholar
  16. [Stor93]
    Storey, V.C. “Understanding Semantic Relationships”, VLDB Journal 2(4), pp. 455–488.Google Scholar
  17. [WaSW99]
    Wand, Y.; Storey, V.C.; Weber, R. “An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling”, ACM TODS, 24(4), pp. 494–528.Google Scholar
  18. [YHGP94]
    Yang, O.; Halper, M.; Geller, J.; Perl, Y. “The OODB Ownership Relationship”, OOIS 1994, pp. 278–291.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoni Olivé
    • 1
  1. 1.Departement de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona (Catalonia)

Personalised recommendations