Roles: A Methodology for Representing Multifaceted Objects

  • M. P. Papazoglou


Most of the efforts in the object modeling arena have concentrated on modeling object structure and behavior, with the behavior of objects being delimited by static schema definitions. Although very little has been accomplished in modeling object dynamics, it is widely accepted that the pattern of object interaction is not static, but evolves to adapt to environmental requirements and changes. In this paper we argue in favor of a model for representing object dynamics whereby objects may be represented from diverse, distinct ontological perspectives with each perspective describing different states of an object within the same application domain.


Class Lattice Domain Class Role Concept Role Interaction Role Instance 
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]
    M. Atkinson, et al. “The Object- Oriented Database System Manifesto”, Procs. 1st Deductive Object-Oriented Database Conf., Kyoto 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Stonebraker, et al. “Third Generation Data Base System Manifesto”, Procs. of the Object-Oriented Database Task Group Workshop, pp. 68–83, Atlantic City, May 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Skarra, S. Zdonik “The Management of Changing Types in an Object-Oriented Database”, in Research Directions in Object-Oriented Systems, B. Schreiver, P. Wegner eds., MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Banerjee et al., “Data Model Issues for Object- Oriented Applications”, ACM Trans. on Office Automation Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–26, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Joseph et al. “Strawman Reference Model for Change Management of Objects”, Procs. of the Object-Oriented Database Task Group Workshop, pp. 68–83, Atlantic City, May 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C.W. Bachman “The Role Concept in Data Models”, Procs. VLDB 77 Conf., pp. 464–476, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Maier., D. Warren “Specifying Connections for a Universal Relation Scheme Database”, Proc. ACM SIGMOD Conf., pp. 1–17, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Maier, D. Rozenshtein, J. Stein “Representing Roles in Universal Scheme Interfaces”, IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., vol. 11, n. 7, pp. 644–652, July 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Maier et al. “PIQUE: A Relational Query Language without Relations”, Information Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 317335, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Brachman, J. Schmolze “An Overview of the KL-ONE Representation System”, Cognitive Science, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 171–216, Apr. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Borgida, et al. “CLASSIC: A Structural Data Model for Objects”, SIGMOD Record, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 58–67, June 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Brachman, et al. “ The CLASSIC knowledge Representation System, or, KL-ONE: The Next Generation”, Workshop on Formal Aspects of Semantic Networks, Feb. 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. P. Papazoglou, C. Hoffmann “The Role of Knowledge in an Active Information Environment,” 1st Int’l Conf. on Tools for AI, pp. 376–385, Virginia Oct. 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Q. Li, M.P. Papazoglou, J.L. Smith “Dynamic Object Models with Spatial Application”, Computer Software eH Applications Conference: COMPSAC-91, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. P. Papazoglou “Representing and Manipulating Polymorphic Objects”, submitted for publication, May 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Andrews, C. Harris, J. Duhl “Ontos Object Database”, Ontologie Inc., Burlington, MA, 01803, March 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Papazoglou
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Computer ScienceAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations