Evolving Derived Entity Types in Conceptual Schemas in the UML

  • Cristina Gómez
  • Antoni Olivé
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2817)


Ideally, the basis for the evolution of an information system is its conceptual schema. The evolution operations should be applied directly to the conceptual schema, and from here they should propagate automatically down to the database schema and application programs. In particular, the evolution of entity types has been studied extensively. However, very little attention has been paid to the evolution of their derivability (for example, changing from base to derived). Our contribution in this paper is an analysis of the evolution of entity types taking into account their derivability. We define a list of possible schema changes related to derivability and we specify them by giving its pre and postconditions. We deal with conceptual schemas in the UML/OCL, although our operations can be adapted to any conceptual modeling language


Conceptual Schema Entity Type Database Schema Specialization Constraint Derivation Rule 
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.
    Al-Jadir, L., Léonard, M.: Multiobjects to Ease Schema Evolution in an OODBMS. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 316–333. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee, J., Chou, H.-T., Garza, J.F., Kim, W., Woelk, D., Ballou, N.: Data Model Issues for Object-Oriented Applications. ACM TOIS 5(1), 3–26 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franconi, E., Grandi, F., Mandreoli, F.: Schema Evolution and Versioning: A Logical and Computational Characterisation. In: Balsters, H., de Brock, B., Conrad, S. (eds.) FoMLaDO 2000 and DEMM 2000. LNCS, vol. 2065, pp. 85–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gómez, C.: Evolució de les taxonomies de tipus d’entitat en esquemes conceptuals en UML. PhD thesis in catalan (In preparation), Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gómez, C., Olivé, A.: Evolving Partitions in Conceptual Schemas in the UML. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 467–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hainaut, J.-L., Englebert, V., Henrard, J., Hick, J.-M., Roland, D.: Database Evolution: the DB-MAIN Approach. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) ER 1994. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 112–131. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hull, R., King, T.: Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys 19(3), 201–260 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacroix, Z., Delobel, C., Brèche, P.: Object Views and Database Restructuring. In: DBLP 1997, pp. 180–201 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lemke, T., Manthey, R.: The Schema Evolution Assistant: Tool Description, Technical report IDEA.DE.22.O.004. University of Bonn. Bonn, Germany (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    López, J.-R., Olivé, A.: A Framework for the Evolution of Temporal Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 369–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manthey, R.: Beyond Data Dictionaries: Towards a Reflective Architecture of Intelligent Database Systems. In: DOOD 1993, pp. 328–339. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olivé, A.: Taxonomies and Derivation Rules in Conceptual Modelling. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 417–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olivé, A., Teniente, E.: Derived types and taxonomic constraints in conceptual modeling. Information Systems 27(6), 391–409 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olivé, A.: Derivation Rules in Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, Springer, Heidelberg (2003) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4 (September 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters, R.J., Özsu, M.T.: An Axiomatic Model of Dynamic Schema Evolution in Objectbase Systems. ACM TODS 22(1), 75–114 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roddick, J.F.: A Survey of Schema Versioning Issues for Database Systems. Inf. Softw. Technol 37(7), 383–393 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sunyé, G., Pennaneac’h, F., Ho, W.-M., Le Guennec, A.l., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Using UML action semantics for executable modeling and beyond. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, p. 433. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zicari, R.: A Framework for Schema Updates in Object-Oriented Database System. In: Bancilhon, F., Delobel, C., Kanellakis, P. (eds.) Building an Object-Oriented Database System – The Story of O2, pp. 146–182. Morgan Kaufmann Pub, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations