Advertisement

The Association Construct in Conceptual Modelling – An Analysis Using the Bunge Ontological Model

  • Joerg Evermann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3520)

Abstract

Associations are a widely used construct of object-oriented languages. However, the meaning of associations for conceptual modelling of application domains remains unclear. This paper employs ontological analysis to first examine the software semantics of the association construct, and shows that they cannot be transferred to conceptual modelling. The paper then explores associations as ’semantic connections’ between objects and shows that this meaning cannot be transferred to conceptual modelling either.

As an alternative to the use of associations, the paper proposes using shared properties, a construct that is rooted directly in ontology. An example from a case study demonstrates how this is applied. The paper then shows an efficient implementation in object-oriented programming languages to maintain seamless transitions between analysis, design, and implementation.

Keywords

Application Domain Association Class Ontological Concept Mutual Property Shared Property 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: What’s the semantics of semantics? IEEE Computer, 64–72 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IBM: Developing object-oriented software: an experience-based approach. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahrami, A.: Object oriented systems development. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Embley, D.W.: Object-oriented systems analysis: a model-driven approach. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siegfried, S.: Understanding object-oriented software engineering. IEEE Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rumbaugh, J.: Relations as semantic constructs in an object-oriented language. In: Proceedings of the 1987 Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems and Languages and Applications, Orlando, FL, pp. 466–481. ACM Press, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: The Unified Modelling Language Specification. Version 1.5. (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems, 217–237 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevens, P.: On the interpretation of binary associations with the unified modelling language. Software and Systems Modelling 1, 68–79 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genova, G., Llorens, J., Martinez, P.: The meaning of multiplicity of n-ary associations in UML. Software and Systems Modelling 1, 86–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennett, B.: Space, time, matter and things. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Ogunquit, Maine, pp. 105–116 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bunge, M.A.: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Treatise On Basic Philosophy. vol. 3. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chisholm, R.: A Realistic Theory of Categories - An Essay on Ontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Degen, W., Heller, B., Herre, H., Smith, B.: GOL: A general ontological language. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Ogunquit, MA, pp. 34–46 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 38–45 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Ogunquit, Maine, pp. 2–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research 12, 384–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evermann, J.: Using Design Languages for Conceptual Modelling: The UML Case. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gemino, A.: Empirical Comparisons of Systems Analysis Modeling Techniques. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated process modelling: An ontological analysis. Information Systems 25, 73–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software and Systems Modeling 1, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons, J., Wand, Y.: Using objects for systems analysis. Communications of the ACM 40, 104–110 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wand, Y., Storey, V.C., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 24, 494–528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rumbaugh, J., et al.: Object Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Booch, G.: Object oriented design with applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coad, P., Yourdon, E.: Object-Oriented Analysis. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: An ontological examination of object interaction in conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems WITS 2001, New Orleans, December 15-16, pp. 91–96 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parsons, J., Wand, Y.: The object paradigm – two for the price of one? In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technology and Systems WITS 1991, New York, NY, pp. 308–319 (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cook, S., Daniels, J.: Designing object systems: object-oriented modelling with Syntropy. Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Graham, I., Bischoff, J., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Associations considered a bad thing. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 9, 41–48 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, J., Odell, J.J.: Object-oriented analysis and design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laddad, R.: AspectJ in Action: Practical Aspect-Oriented Programming. Manning Publications, Greenwich (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porton, V.: Binding together properties of objects (2004), http://ex-code.com/articles/binding-properties.html (Last accessed September 23, 2004)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joerg Evermann
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information ManagementVictoria UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations