Skip to main content

Fixing Up Non-executable Operations in UML/OCL Conceptual Schemas

  • Conference paper
Conceptual Modeling (ER 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 8824))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

An operation is executable if there is at least one information base in which its preconditions hold and such that the new information base obtained from applying its postconditions satisfies all the integrity constraints. A non-executable operation is useless since it may never be applied. Therefore, identifying non-executable operations and fixing up their definition is a relevant task that should be performed as early as possible in software development. We address this problem in the paper by proposing an algorithm to automatically compute the missing effects in postconditions that would ensure the executability of the operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language (UML) Superstructure Specification, version 2.4.1 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/

  3. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verifying UML/OCL operation contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 40–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Object Management Group (OMG): Object Constraint Language (UML), version 2.3.1 (2012), http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/

  5. Hamann, L., Hofrichter, O., Gogolla, M.: On integrating structure and behavior modeling with OCL. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 235–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Soeken, M., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Verifying dynamic aspects of UML models. In: Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 1–6 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roldán, M., Durán, F.: Dynamic validation of OCL constraints with mOdCL. In: International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML conceptual schemas with operations. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: HOL-OCL: A formal proof environment for UML/OCL. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 97–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Olivé, A.: Conceptual schema-centric development: A grand challenge for information systems research. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML conceptual schemas with OCL constraints. ACM TOSEM 21(2), 13 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Costal, D., Gómez, C., Queralt, A., Raventós, R., Teniente, E.: Improving the definition of general constraints in UML. Software & Systems Modeling 7(4), 469–486 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olivé, A.: Integrity constraints checking in deductive databases. In: Proceedings of the 17th Int. Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 513–523 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Farré, C., Teniente, E., Urpí, T.: Checking query containment with the CQC method. Data & Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 163–223 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Planas, E., Olivé, A.: The DBLP case study (2006), http://guifre.lsi.upc.edu//DBLP.pdf

  16. Krieger, M.P., Knapp, A., Wolff, B.: Automatic and efficient simulation of operation contracts. In: 9th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2010, pp. 53–62. ACM, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Albert, M., Cabot, J., Gómez, C., Pelechano, V.: Generating operation specifications from UML class diagrams: A model transformation approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering 70(4), 365–389 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Oriol, X., Teniente, E., Tort, A. (2014). Fixing Up Non-executable Operations in UML/OCL Conceptual Schemas. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8824. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12205-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12206-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics