Contextual Diagrams as Structuring Mechanisms for Designing Configuration Knowledge Bases in UML

  • Alexander Felfernig
  • Dietmar Jannach
  • Markus Zanker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1939)


Lower prices, shorter product cycles, and the customer individual production of highly variant products are the main reasons for the success of product configuration systems in various application domains (telecommunication industry, automotive industry, computer industry). In this paper we show how to employ UML in order to design complex configuration knowledge bases. We introduce the notion of contextual diagrams in order to cope with the intrinsic complexity of configuration knowledge. Since domain experts mostly think in terms of contexts, this approach leads to a more intuitive way of modeling configuration knowledge.


Customer Requirement Component Type Domain Description Translation Rule Complex Constraint 
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.
    V.E. Barker, D.E. O’Connor, J.D. Bachant, and E. Soloway. Expert systems for configuration at Digital: XCON and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 32, 3:298–318, 1989. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.H. Bourdeau and B.H.C. Cheng. A formal Semantics for Object Model Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21,10:799–821, 1995. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles Charlton and Ken Wallace. Reminding and context in design. In Proceedings 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Design (AID’00), pages 569–588, Boston/Worcester, MA, USA, 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.M. Delisle and M.D. Schwartz. Contexts — a partitioning concept for hypertext. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 5,2:168–186, 1987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Evans. Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In Proceedings Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Methods(WIFT’98), Florida, USA, 1998. IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Evans and S. Kent. Core Meta-Modeling Semantics of UML: the pUML aproach. In Proceedings ¡¡UML¿¿’99, pages 140–155, Fort Collings, Colorado, USA, 1999. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Feldkamp, M. Heinrich, and K.D. Meyer Gramann. SyDeR System Development For Reusability. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12,4:373–382, 1998. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. In 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 337–345, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1999. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. Generating product configuration knowledge bases from precise domain extended UML models. In Proc. 12th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 284–293, Chicago, USA, 2000. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, and M. Stumptner. An Integrated Development Environment for the Design and Maintenance of Large Configuration Knowledge Bases. Artificial Intelligence in Design (AID’00) (to appear), Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Friedrich and M. Stumptner. Consistency-Based Configuration. In AAAI Workshop on Configuration, Technical Report WS-99-05, pages 35–40, Orlando, Florida, 1999. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Gil, J. Howse, and S. Kent. Constraint Diagrams: A Step Beyond UML. In Proceedings TOOLS USA’99. IEEE Press, 1999. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Lowry, A. Philpot, T. Pressburger, and I. Underwood. A formal approach to domain-oriented software design environments. In Proc. 9th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, pages 48–57, Montery, CA, USA, 1994. IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Mailharro. A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12,4:383–397, 1998. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. McCarthy. Notes on formalizing context. In Proc. of the 13th IJCAI, pages 555–560, Chambery, France, 1993. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Mittal and F. Frayman. Towards a Generic Model of Configuration Tasks. In Proc. of the 11th IJCAI, pages 1395–1401, Detroit, MI, 1989. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Peltonen, T. Mnnist, T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, A. Martio, and R. Sulonen. Concepts for Modeling Configurable Products. In Proceedings of European Conference Product Data Technology Days, pages 189–196, Sandhurst, UK, 1998. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B.J. PineII, B. Victor, and A.C. Boynton. Making Mass Customization Work. Harvard Business Review, Sep./Oct. 1993:109–119, 1993. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. In Prentice Hall International Editions, New Jersey, USA, 1991. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1998. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Siegel, E. Sciore, and S. Salveter. A method for automatic rule derivation to support semantic query optimization. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 17:563–600, 1992. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. Mnnist, and R. Sulonen. Towards a General Ontology of Configuration. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12,4:357–372, 1998. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Stumptner. An overview of knowledge-based configuration. AI Communications, 10(2), June, 1997. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Stumptner, G. Friedrich, and A. Haselbck. Generative constraint-based configuration of large technical systems. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12, 4:307–320, Sep. 1998. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manos Theodorakis, Anastasia Analyti, Panos Constantopoulos, and Nikos Spyratos. Context in information bases. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’98), pages 260–270, New York City, NY, USA, August 1998. IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Felfernig
    • 1
  • Dietmar Jannach
    • 1
  • Markus Zanker
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik und AnwendungssystemeProduktionsinformatik,Universitätsstrasse 65-67KlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations