This paper proposes an extension to the Object-Role Modeling approach to support formal declaration of dynamic rules. Dynamic rules differ from static rules by pertaining to properties of state transitions, rather than to the states themselves. In this paper, application of dynamic rules is restricted to so-called single-step transactions, with an old state (the input of the transaction) and a new state (the direct result of that transaction). Such restricted rules are easier to formulate (and enforce) than a constraint applying historically over all possible states. In our approach, dynamic rules specify an elementary transaction type indicating which kind of object or fact is being added, deleted or updated, and (optionally) pre-conditions relevant to the transaction, followed by a condition stating the properties of the new state, including the relation between the new state and the old state. These dynamic rules are formulated in a syntax designed to be easily validated by non-technical domain experts.


Object Constraint Language Fact Type Dynamic Constraint Business Rule Object Management Group 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bakema, G., Zwart, J., van der Lek, H.: Fully Communication Oriented Information Modelling, Ten Hagen Stam, The Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Brock, E.O.: A General Treatment of Dynamic Integrity Constraints. Data and Knowledge Engineering 32(3), 223–246 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruza, P.D., van der Weide, T.P.: The Semantics of TRIDL, Technical Report 89-17, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen (1989) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chomicki, J.: History-less Checking of Dynamic Integrity Constraints. In: ICDE 1992, pp. 557–564 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Embley, D.W.: Object Database Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Falkenberg, E.D., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal Description of the TOP Model. Technical Report 88-01, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: Business Rule Verbalization, Information Systems Technology and its Applications. In: Doroshenko, A., Halpin, T., Liddle, S., Mayr, H. (eds.) Proc. ISTA-2004, Salt Lake City. Lec. Notes in Informatics, vol. P-48, pp. 39–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling in UML and ORM: A Comparison. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, vol. 3, pp. 1471–1475. Idea Publishing Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: ORM 2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 676–687. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T.: Business Rule Modality. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.) Proc. CAiSE 2006 Workshops, pp. 383–394. Namur University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T.: ORM/NIAM Object-Role Modeling. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Information Systems Architectures, 2nd edn., pp. 81–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T., Wagner, G.: Modeling Reactive Behavior in ORM. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 567–569. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Information Modelling in Data Intensive Domains, PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen (1993) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., 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
  17. 17.
    Lipeck, U.W.: Transformation of Dynamic Integrity Constraints into Transaction Specifications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 76(1), 115–142 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group 2003, UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, Online at:
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group 2005, UML OCL 2.0 Specification, Online at:
  20. 20.
    Olivé, A.: Integrity Constraints Definition in Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 349–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paton, N.W., Díaz, O.: Active Database Systems. ACM Computing Surveys 31(1), 63–103 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Proper, H.A.: A Theory for Conceptual Modeling of Evolving Application Domains, PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Proper, H.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., van der Weide, T.P.: A Fact-Oriented Approach to Activity Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 666–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Theodoulidis, C., Loucopoulos, P., Kopanas, V.: A Rule Oriented Formalism for Active Temporal Databases. In: Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P. (eds.) Next Generation CASE Tools. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Theodoulidis, C., Wangler, B., Loucopoulos, P.: The Entity-Relationship-Time Model. In: Conceptual Modelling, Databases, and CASE: An Integrated View of Information Systems Development, ch.4, pp. 87–115. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wintraecken, J.: The NIAM Information Analysis Method: Theory and Practice. Kluwer, Deventer (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herman Balsters
    • 1
  • Andy Carver
    • 2
  • Terry Halpin
    • 2
  • Tony Morgan
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Neumont UniversityUtahUSA

Personalised recommendations