Computing the Relevant Instances That May Violate an OCL Constraint

  • Jordi Cabot
  • Ernest Teniente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3520)


Integrity checking is aimed at efficiently determining whether the state of the information base is consistent after the application of a set of structural events. One possible way to achieve efficiency is to consider only the relevant instances that may violate an integrity constraint instead of the whole population of the information base. This is the approach we follow in this paper to automatically check the integrity constraints defined in a UML conceptual schema. Since the method we propose uses only the standard elements of the conceptual schema to process the constraints, its efficiency improvement can benefit any implementation of the schema regardless the technology used.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Determining the Structural Events that May Violate an Integrity Constraint. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Computing the Relevant Instances that May Violate an OCL constraint. LSI Research Report, LSI-05-5-R, UPC (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ceri, S., Widom, J.: Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance. In: Proc. 16th VLDB Conference (VLDB 1990), pp. 566–577. Morgan Kauggmann, San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gogolla, M., Richters, M.: Expressing UML Class Diagrams Properties with OCL. In: Clark, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Object Modeling with the OCL. LNCS, vol. 2263, pp. 85–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, A., Mumick, I.S.: Maintenance of materialized views: problems, techniques, and applications. In: Materialized Views Techniques, Implementations, and Applications, pp. 145–157. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base. ISO (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olivé, A.: Time and Change in Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lindencrona, E., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering. State of the Art and Research Themes, pp. 289–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olivé, A.: Derivation Rules in Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 404–420. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/03-10-14) (2003) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/03-08-02) (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieringa, R.: A survey of structured and object-oriented software specification methods and techniques. ACM Computing Surveys 30, 459–527 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 2
  1. 1.Estudis d’Informática i MultimédiaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya 
  2. 2.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemes InformáticsUniversitat Politécnica de Catalunya 

Personalised recommendations