Advertisement

An object model for engineering design

  • G. T. Nguyen
  • D. Rieu
  • J. Escamilla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 615)

Abstract

Applications requiring sophisticated modeling techniques raise challenging issues to software designers. CAD/CAM and genetics are example of applications that call for powerful modeling techniques. Existing approaches seem limited in their ability to support their demands. Relational database systems for example support only simple tables. The need to enhance their capabilities led to non-normalized relational data models. Object-oriented programming languages and databases propose new solutions to the problems of complex and composite object modeling and manipulation. Yet, severe shortcomings impede their practicability, e.g., their inability to model multiple object representations and complex semantic relationships.

This paper is an informal overview of a data model called SHOOD based on object-oriented concepts and frame-based knowledge representation. SHOOD implements sophisticated features, such as: · object persistence, multi-methods along a specific specialization hierarchy (which is independent of the class hierarchy), · sophisticated semantic relationships, e.g., dependency relationships between objects (which are totally independent of the composition relationship), · multiple object representations, allowing the users to manipulate the objects from several points of views simultaneously, · the systematic use of a powerful meta-object kernel, which is used to implement a reflexive architecture. The paper focuses on the last two issues.

Keywords

Semantic Relationship Class Graph Composite Object Object Instance Main Window 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed R., Navathe S. Version management of composite objects in CAD databases. Proc. ACM SIGMOD '91 Conf. Denver (Co). 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee J., Kim W., Kim K.J., Korth H. Semantics and implementations of schema evolution in object-oriented databases. Proc. ACM SIGMOD '87 Conf. San Francisco (Ca). 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauzer-Medeiros C., Pfeffer P. Object integrity using rules. Proc. ECOOP '91. Geneva (CH). July 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carré B., Geib J.M. The point of view notion for multiple inheritance. Proc. ECOOP/OOPSLA '90. Ottawa (C). 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casais E. Managing class evolution in object-oriented systems. Centre Universitaire Informatique. Université de Genève (CH). 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cointe P. Metaclasses are First Class: the ObjVlisp Model. Proceedings OOPSLA'87. 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dayal U. & al. Rules are objects too: a knowledge model for an active object-oriented database system. Advances in object-oriented database systems. Bad-Munster (G). September 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escamilla J., Jean P. Relationships in an Object Knowledge Representation Model. Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. Tools for Artificial Intelligence. Washington (D.C). 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox M., Wright JM., Adam D. Experiences with SRL: an analysis of a frame-based knowledge representation. Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. Expert Database Systems.Charleston (SC). 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabriel R.P & al. CLOS: integratingobject-oriented and functional programming. Comm. ACM. 34(9). 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giacometti F., Chang T.C. Object-oriented design for modelling parts, assemblies and tolerances. Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. TOOLS '90. Paris (F). 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldberg A., Robson D. Smalltalk 80: the language and its implementation. Addison-Wesley. 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keene S.E. Object-oriented programming in Common Lisp. A programmer's guide to CLOS. Addison-Wesley. 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller T. & al. Efficient assembly of complex objects. Proc. ACM SIGMOD '91 Conf. Denver (Co). 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim W. Object-oriented databases: definition and research directions. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2(3). 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotz & al. Supporting Semantic Rules by a Generalized Event/Trigger Mechanism. Advances in DB technology. EDBT '88. Venice (I). March 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marino O. & al. Multiple perspectives and classification mechanism in object oriented representation. Proc. ECAI Conf. Stockholm (S). 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer B. Object-oriented software construction. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minsky M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill. 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen G.T., Rieu D. Schema evolution in object-oriented database systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering. North-Holland. 4(1). 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen G.T, Rieu D. Heuristic control on dynamic database objects. Information Processing '90. Meersman (ed.). North-Holland. 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen G.T, Rieu D. Representing design objects. Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Design. Edinburgh (U.K). 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nguyen G.T, Rieu D. Multiple object representations. Proc. 20th ACM Computer Science Conference. Kansas City (Mo). 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paepcke A. PCLOS: stress testing CLOS. Experiencing the metaobject protocol. Proc. ECOOP/OOPSLA '90. Ottawa (C). September 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pernici B. Objects with roles. Proc. Intl. Conf. on Office Information Systems. Boston (Ma). 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richardson J., Schwarz P. Aspects: extending objects to support multiple, independent roles. Proc ACM SIGMOD '91 Conf. Denver (Co.). 1991.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rieu D., Nguyen G.T. Semantics of CAD Objects for Generalized Databases. Proc. 23rd Design Automation Conference. Las Vegas (Nevada). 1986.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rieu D., Nguyen G.T. Object views for engineering databases. Proc. 3rd Intl. Conf. Data & Knowledge Systems for Manufacturing & Engineering. Lyon (F). 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sciore E.Object specialization. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems. 7(2). 1989.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silberschatz A., Stonebraker M., Ullman J.D. Database systems: achievements and opportunities. Laguna Beach Report. TR 90-22. Dept. of Comp. Sc. The University of Texas at Austin. Austin (Tx). 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Unland R., Schlageter G. Object-oriented database systems: concepts and perspectives. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag. 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. T. Nguyen
    • 1
  • D. Rieu
    • 1
  • J. Escamilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génie InformatiqueIRIMAGGrenoble CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations