A Grammar-Based Framework for Object Dynamics

  • Ranabir Gupta
  • Gary Hall
Conference paper


A grammar-based categorization of practical systems for modeling the dynamic behaviour of objects is presented. A framework based on Augmented Transition Networks is proposed as an ideal modeling tool for such systems, affording both formal analyzability and the functionality needed to model practical systems. The flexibility of the framework in achieving useful tradeoffs between complexity and modeling power is demonstrated by presenting and critically analyzing some relevant algorithms.


Constructor Function Attribute Grammar Object History Conceptual Abstraction Allowable Sequence 
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]
    James Rumbaugh et al, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Gupta and G. M. Swinkels, “Fundamental Design Principles of a Multi-Agent Planner” Internal Technical Report, National Research Council, Vancouver, Canada, 1991 (release number and submission forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. L. Brodie and D. Ridjanovic, “On the Design and Specification of Database Transactions”, in On Conceptual Modelling, M. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, and J. Schmidt (eds.) Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 277–306, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. H. H. Ngu, “Conceptual Transaction Modeling”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 1(4), pp. 508–518, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. M. Markowitz, “Representing Processes in the Extended Entity-Relationship Model”, in Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 103-110, Los Angeles, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. Sakai, “A Method for Entity-Relationship Behaviour Modeling”, in Entity-Relationship Approach to Software Engineering, C. G. Davis et. al. (eds.) Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland), pp. 111–129, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Eder, G. Kappel, A.M. Tjoa, and R.R. Wagner, “BIER — The Behaviour Integrated Entity Relationship Approach”, in Entity-Relationship Approach, S. Spaccapietra (ed.) Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland), pp. 147–166, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. L. Peterson, Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    L.F. Pollacia, “The Object Flow Model: A Conceptual Modeling Language for Object-Driven Software”, PhD Thesis, The University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, 1991Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl, “Object/Behaviour Diagrams”, in Proceedings 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 530-539, Kobe, Japan, 1991Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. Jensen, “Coloured Petri Nets: A High-Level Language for System Design and Analysis”, Tech. Rep. DAIMI PB-338, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Nov. 1990Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R.P. van de Riet, “MOKUM: An Object-Oriented Active Knowledge Base System”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 4(1), pp. 21–42, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Pernici, “Objects with Roles”, in Conference on Office Information Systems, pp. 205-215, 1990Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M.E. El-Sharkawi and S. Kambayashi, “Object Migration Mechanisms to Support Updates in Object-Oriented Databases”, in PARBASE-90 International Conference on Databases, Parallel Architectures and their Applications, pp. 378-387, IEEE, 1990Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. Hall and R. Gupta, “Modeling Transition”, in Proceedings 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 540-549, Kobe, Japan,1991Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Gupta and G. Hall, “An Abstraction Mechanism for Modeling Generation”, in Proceedings 8th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 650-658, Tempe, Arizona, 1992Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. A. Allen, “Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26(11), pp. 832–843, 1983.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Snodgrass and I. Ahn, “Taxonomy of Time in DB”, in Proceedings of the 1985 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 236-246, Austin, TX, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Su, “Dynamic Constraints and Object Migration”, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 233-242, Barcelona, 1991Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. K. Gadia and J. H. Vaishnav, “A Query Language for Homogenous Temporal Databases”, in Proceedings of the 1985 ACM Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems pp. 51-65, Portland, OR, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass., 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Bates, “The Theory and Practice of Augmented Transition Network Grammars”, in Natural Language Communication with Computers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol 63, L. Bolc (ed.) Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 191–260, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    D.E. Knuth, “Semantics of Context Free Languages”, Math Sys Theory, Vol. 2(2), pp. 127–145, 1968.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    H.E. Levesque, “A Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning”, in Proceedings CSCSI’ 84, pp. 141-152, London, Ontario, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranabir Gupta
    • 1
  • Gary Hall
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Systems ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations