Advertisement

Fact Calculus: Using ORM and Lisa-D to Reason About Domains

  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
  • Th. P. van der Weide
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3762)

Abstract

We propose to use ORM and Lisa-D as means to formally reason about domains. Conceptual rule languages such as Lisa-D, RIDL and ConQuer allow for the specification of rules in a semi-natural language format that can more easily be understood by domain experts than languages such as predicate calculus, Z or OCL. If one would indeed be able to reason about properties of domains in terms of Lisa-D expressions, then this reasoning would be likely to be better accessible to people without a background in formal mathematics, such as “the average” domain expert. A potential application domain for such reasoning would be the field of business rules. If we can reason about business rules formulated in a semi-natural language format, the formal equivalence of (sets of) business rules (i.e. various paraphrasings) can be discussed with domain experts in a language and a fashion that is familiar to them.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloesch, A.C., Halpin, T.A.: ConQuer: A Conceptual Query Language. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 121–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Bommel, P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Semantics and verification of object-role models. Information Systems 16(5), 471–495 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enderton, H.B.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic Press, New York (1972)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frederiks, P.J.M.: Object-Oriented Modeling based on Information Grammars. PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, EU (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halpin, T.A.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (Erik) Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoppenbrouwers, J.J.A.C.: Conceptual Modeling and the Lexicon. PhD thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, EU (1997) ISBN 90-5668-027-7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A. (Erik) Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Fundamental understanding of the act of modelling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meersman, R.: The RIDL Conceptual Language. In: International Centre for Information Analysis Services, Control Data Belgium, Inc., Brussels, Belgium (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ross, R.G. (ed.): Business Rules Manifesto. Business Rules Group (November 2003), Version 2.0, http://www.businessrulesgroup.org/brmanifesto.htm
  11. 11.
    Spivey, J.M.: Understanding Z: A Specification Language and its Formal Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
    • 1
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
    • 1
  • Th. P. van der Weide
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands, EU

Personalised recommendations