Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An integrating view on the viewing abstraction: Contexts and perspectives in software development, AI, and databases

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Integration

Abstract

Viewing entities from different situations and representing and processing them in different contexts constitutes a fundamental concern in various disciplines of computer science. Not surprisingly, the viewing abstraction is supported by many languages and techniques employed either for programming or “world modelling”. This paper presents an overview on various manifestations of viewing mechanisms in formal notations including software development techniques, knowledge representation languages, and data models. The concepts of context and perspective are introduced in form of a language-independent framework in order to capture and systematically discuss features that characterize viewing mechanisms, such as the relationship between the two, the relation between different perspectives on the same conceptual entity, or operations supporting effective construction of contexts. In addition, it is argued that the full power of viewing can be exploited by supporting both notions: contexts as well as perspectives. In order to achieve this support, any formal notation has to fulfill a number of general requirements which are stated as a result of the investigation and the survey.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. S. Abiteboul and A. Bonner A, “Objects and views,” inProc. of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Denver, Colorado, May 1991, pp. 238–247.

  2. R. Ahmed, S. B. Navathe, “Version management of composite objects in CAD databases,” inACM SIGMOD. Proc. of the Internat. Conference on Management of Data, Denver, Colorado, May 1991, pp. 218–227.

  3. A. Albano, L. Cardelli, and R. Orsini, “Galileo: A strongly-typed, interactive conceptual language,” inACM Transactions on Database Systems 10(2), pp. 230–260, June 1985.

  4. J. Anderson, 1990.Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Third edition, Freeman.

  5. G. R. Barber, “Office semantics.” Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Beeri, “New data models and languages—The challenge,” inProc. of ACM PODS 92. Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1992.

  7. E. Bertino, “A view mechanism for object-oriented database,” inProc. of EDBT 92’; 3rd International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No 580, Springer Verlag, Vienna, March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Bertino and H. Weigand, “An approach to authorization modeling in object-oriented database systems.”Data & Knowledge Engineering 12(1), pp. 1–29, February 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. G. Bobrow and T. Winograd, “An overview of KRL a knowledge representation language.”Cognitive Science 1(1), pp. 3–46, 1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. D. G. Bobrow and M. J. Stefik, 1993.The LOOPS Manual. Xerox Corporation, December 1983.

  11. M. Brodie, “Association: A database abstraction for semantik modelling.” In P. P. Chen, editor,E-R Approach to Information Modelling and Analysis. ER Institute, pp. 583–608, 1981.

  12. M. Brodie, “On the development of data models.” In M. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, J. W. Schmidt, editors,On Conceptual Modeling, Springer Verlag, 1984.

  13. E. F. Codd, 1990.The Relational Model for Database Management, Version 2. Addison-Wesley.

  14. J. de Kleer, “An assumption-based truth, maintenance system.”Artificial Intelligence 28(2), pp. 127–162, January 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R. Fikes and Kehler, “The role of frame-based representations in reasoning.”Communications of the ACM 28(9) 1985.

  16. R. E. Filman, “Reasoning with worlds and truth maintenance in a knowledge-based programming environment.”Communications of the ACM 31(4), pp. 382–401, April 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. N. Findler, 1979.Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers. Academic Press.

  18. A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, “Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development.”Int. Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 2(1), World Scientific, pp. 31–58, March 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. D. Gottlob, G. Kappel, and M. Schrefl, “Semantics of object-oriented data models—The evolving algebra approach.” Int. Workshop on Information Systems for the 90's, J. W. Schmidt, editor,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, 1991.

  20. A. N. Habermann, Ch. Krueger, B. Pierce, B. Staudt, and J. Wenn, “Programming with views” Technical Report CMU-CS-87-177, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1988.

  21. M. Hammer and D. McLeod, “Database description with SDM: A semantic database model.”ACM Transactions on Databas Systems 6(3), pp. 351–386, September 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. W. Harrison, “The RPDE3 environment—A framework for integrating tool fragments.”IEEE Software 4(6), pp. 46–57, November 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  23. G. Hendrix, “Expanding the utility of semantic networks through partitioning,” inAdvance Papers of the IJCAI'75, International Joint Conf. on AI, 1975, pp. 115–121.

  24. G. Hendrix, “Encoding knowledge in partitioned networks,” in [17].Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers. Academic Press.

  25. C. Hewitt, “Procedural embedding of knowledge in PLANNER,” inProc. of the 2nd IJCAI, International Joint Conf. on AI, September 1971, pp. 167–182.

  26. C. Hewitt, G. Attardi, and M. Simi, “Knowledge embedding with a description system.”AI Memo, MIT, August 1980.

  27. R. Hull and R. King, “Semantic database modelling: Survey, applications and research issues”ACM Computing Surveys 19(3), September 1987.

  28. G. Kaiser and D. Garlan, “Melding data flow and object-oriented programming” inProc. of the OOPSLA 87', International Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, pp. 254–267, Proc. published asSIGPLAN Notices 22(12), December 1987.

  29. R. H. Katz, “Toward a unified framework for version modelling in engineering databases.”ACM Computing Surveys 22(4), pp. 375–408, December 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M. Kifer, W. Kim, and Y. Sagiv, “Querying object-oriented databases,” inProc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, June 1992, pp. 393–402.

  31. W. Kim, E. Bertino, J. F. Garza, “Composite objects revisited,” inProc. of the International Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, October 1989, pp. 337–347.

  32. D. B. Leblang and R. P. Chase, “Computer-aided software engineering in a distributed workstation environment,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN/SIGSOFT Conf. on Practical Software Development Environments, ACM, New York, April 1984, pp. 1041–112.

  33. J. C. Leite and P. A. Freeman, “Requirements validation, through viewpoint resolution,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(12), pp. 1253–1269, December 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. H. Levesque and J. Mylopoulos, “Procedural semantics for semantic networks,” in [17].

  35. H. Levesque, “A logic of implicit and explicit belief,” inProc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, August 6–10 1984., pp. 198–202.

  36. R. Motschnig-Pitrik., “A framework for the support of a common structural level for software, database-, and knowledge based systems”The Journal of Systems and Software North Holland., (12)12, pp. 125–137, December 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. R. Motschnig-Pitrik and J. Mylopoulos, “Classes and instances,”Int. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 1(1), pp. 61–92, March 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R. Motschnig-Pitrik, “The semantics of parts versus aggregates in data/knowledge modelling,” inProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 93', C. Rolland et al., editors,Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 685, Springer-Verlag June 1993.

  39. R. Motschnig-Pitrik, “Analyzing the notions of atribbute, aggregate, part and member in data/knowledge modelling,” inProc. of the 4th Internat. Conf. on Information Systems Development, Bled, Slovenia, September 1994.

  40. R. Motschnig-Pitrik,Requirements and Analysis of View Mechanisms in Object-Oriented Databases. University of Vienna, submitted for publication, June 1994.

  41. G. Mullery, “CORE—A method for controlled requirements specification” inProc. of the 4th Int. Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE CS Press, pp. 126–135, 1979.

  42. J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis, “Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems.”ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8(4), pp. 325–362, October 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. J. Mylopoulos and R. Motschnig-Pitrik, “Partitioning an information base through contexts,”Proc. of Coop 15–95 3rd International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Vienna, May 1995.

  44. B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein, “Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification,” inProc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, IEEE Baltimore, Maryland, May 1993, pp., 187–196.

  45. V. Prevelakis and D. Tsichritzis, “Perspectives on software development environments,” In C. Rolland et al., editors,Proc. of the CAiSE'93, Paris, France, June 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 685, Springer Verlag, 1993.

  46. F. Rabitti, E. Bertino, W. Kim, and D. Woelk, “A model of authorization for next-generation database systems”ACM Transactios on Database Systems 16(1), pp. 88–131, March 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. D. T. Ross, “Structured analysis (SA): A language for communicating ideas”.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3(1), pp. 16–34, January 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  48. P.F. Schneider, “Contexts in PSN,” inProc. of the AI-CSCSI-SCEIO Conference, Victoria, B.C, May 1980. pp. 71–78.

  49. M.H. Scholl, C. Laasch, and M. Tresch, “Updateable views in object oriented databases,” inProc. of the 2nd DOOD 91′, Internat. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, C. Delobel et al., editors,Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 566, Munich, Germany, December 1991, pp. 189–207.

  50. M. Shaw, “The impact of modelling and abstraction concerns on modern programming languages.” In M. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, J. W. Schmidt, editors,On Conceptual Modeling, Springer Verlag, 1984.

  51. J. J. Shilling and P. F. Sweeney, “Three steps to views: Extending the object-oriented paradigm,” inACM Proceedings of OOPSLA ′89, Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, October 1989, pp. 353–360.

  52. Y.M. Shyy and S.Y.W. Su, “K: A high-level knowledge base programming language for advanced database applications,” inProc. ACM-SIGMOD Conference, 218–227, Denver, Colorado, May 1991, pp. 338–347.

  53. J. M. Smith and D. C. P. Smith, “Database abstractions: Aggregation and generalization.”ACM Transactions on Database Systems 2(2), 105–133, June 1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. M. S. Stefik and D. G. Bobrow, “Object-oriented programming: Themes and variations,”The AI Magazine 6(4), pp. 40–62, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  55. V.C. Storey, “Understanding semantic relationships,”Very Large Data Bases Journal 2(2), 455–488, October 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  56. SUN Microsystems, 1988.Introduction to the NSE.SUN Part No. 800-2362-1300. March.

  57. G. J. Sussman and D. V. McDermott, “From PLANNER to CONNIVER—A genetic approach,” inProc. of the 3rd IJCAI 72′, Internat. Joint Conference on AI, Anaheim, CA, 1972, pp. 1171–1179.

  58. G. Vinek, P. F. Rennert, and A. M. Tjoa, 1982.Datenmodellierung: Theorie und Praxis des Datenbankentwurfs. Physica-Verlag.

  59. Y. Wand and R. Weber, “A unified model of software and data decomposition,” inProc. of the 12th Annual International Conference on Information Systems, New York, December 1991, pp. 101–110.

  60. P. Wegner, “Dimensions of object-based language design,” inACM Proceedings of OOPSLA′87 Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, October 1987, pp. 168–182.

  61. D. S. Wile and D. G. Allard, “Worlds: An organizing structure for object-bases,”ACM SIGPLAN Notices 22(1), pp. 16–26, January 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  62. E. Yourdon and L. L. Constantine, 1979,Structured Design—Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice Hall.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Computer Science and Information Systems, Rathausstrasse 19/4, 1010, Vienna, Austria

    Renate Motschnig-Pitrik

Authors
  1. Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Motschnig-Pitrik, R. An integrating view on the viewing abstraction: Contexts and perspectives in software development, AI, and databases. Journal of Systems Integration 5, 23–60 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01974230

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01974230

Keywords

Search

Navigation