Incremental Evaluation of OCL Constraints

  • Jordi Cabot
  • Ernest Teniente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4001)


Integrity checking is aimed at determining whether an operation execution violates a given integrity constraint. To perform this computation efficiently, several incremental methods have been developed. The main goal of these methods is to consider as few of the entities in an information base as possible, which is generally achieved by reasoning from the structural events that define the effect of the operations. In this paper, we propose a new method for dealing with the incremental evaluation of the OCL integrity constraints specified in UML conceptual schemas. Since our method works at a conceptual level, its results are useful in efficiently evaluating constraints regardless of the technology platform in which the conceptual schema is to be implemented.


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. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 48–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Incremental Evaluation of OCL Constraints (extended version). UPC, LSI Research Report, LSI-05-12-R (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: A Tool for the Incremental Evaluation of OCL Constraints (2006), Available at:
  5. 5.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Transforming OCL Constraints: A Context Change Approach. In: Proc. 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (Model Transformation Track) (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base. ISO (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further Improvements on Integrity Constraint Checking for Stratifiable Deductive Databases. In: Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 495–505. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klasse Objecten: Octopus: OCL Tool for Precise UML Specifications (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/03-10-14) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/03-08-02) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pastor, O., Gómez, J., Insfrán, E., Pelechano, V.: The OO-Method Approach for Information Systems Modeling: From Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling to Automated Programming. Information Systems 26, 507–534 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ross, K.A., Srivastava, D., Sudarshan, S.: Materialized View Maintenance and Integrity Constraint Checking: Trading Space for Time. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 447–458 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dresden University: Dresden OCL Toolkit (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Babes-Bolyai University: Object Constraint Language Environment 2.0Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Urpí, T., Olivé, A.: A Method for Change Computation in Deductive Databases. In: Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 225–237. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 2
  1. 1.Estudis d’Informàtica i MultimèdiaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya 
  2. 2.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya 

Personalised recommendations