Formal approach to metamodeling: A generic object-oriented perspective

  • Vojislav B. Miŝic
  • Simon Mosere
Session 6b: Object-Oriented Modeling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1331)


Formal methods and metamodeling are promising ways to cope with the ever increasing size and complexity of modern software systems: the former should provide the means to write precise, unambiguous, and provably consistent descriptions of system properties, while the latter should lead to a better understanding of the software development process through metamodeling the descriptions produced in the course of the software development process. In this paper, we propose to use both formal methods and metamodeling, in order to combine their advantages. A generic metamodel of object-oriented systems is presented and specified, using the Z formal notation. Other known models may easily be mapped to our model, as demonstrated on the OMG core object model. The formal notation facilitates the specification of various constraints and consistency checks, a number of which are shown in detail.


Formal Method External Part Software Development Process Object Management Group Formal Notation 
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. 1.
    R. G. G. Cattell. Object Data Management, revised edition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. ElMasri and S. B. Navathe. Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd edition. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Hall. Seven myths of formal methods. IEEE Software, 7(5):11–19, Sept. 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Hayes, editor. Specification Case Studies, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. S. C. Houston and M. B. Josephs. A formal description of the OMG's Core Object Model and the meaning of compatible extension. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 17(5–6):553–558,1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V Miŝić and S. Moser. From metamodels to metrics: a formal object-oriented approach. Submitted to TOOLS Asia Conference, Beijing, China, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Moser. Measurement and Estimation of Software and Software Processes. PhD Thesis, University of Berne, Switzerland, Nov. 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Moser and V Miŝić. Measuring class coupling and cohesion: a formal metamodel approach. Submitted to Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference APSEC'97, Hong Kong, Dec. 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The common object request broker: Architecture and specification, revision 2.0. OMG Document 91.12.1, Object Management Group, July 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. M. Soley, editor. Object Management Architecture Guide, Revision 3.0, 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, June 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. M. Soley and W. Kent. The OMG object model. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database System: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond, chapter 2, pages 18–41. ACM Press and Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y. Wand and R. Weber. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11):1282–1292, Nov. 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vojislav B. Miŝic
    • 1
  • Simon Mosere
    • 2
  1. 1.The Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water Bay, KowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.CSSE/COTARSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthorn VicAustralia

Personalised recommendations