Advertisement

Implementing UML Association, Aggregation, and Composition. A Particular Interpretation Based on a Multidimensional Framework

  • Manoli Albert
  • Vicente Pelechano
  • Joan Fons
  • Marta Ruiz
  • Oscar Pastor
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2681)

Abstract

This work presents a code generation process that systematically obtains the implementation of the UML association, aggregation and composition concepts in the context of the OO-Method (an OO automated software production method). A multidimensional framework, which identifies a set of basic properties, allows us to characterize association relationships in the OO conceptual modelling. By applying this framework, we provide a particular interpretation of the UML association, aggregation and composition concepts for the OO-Method. Once we have defined a clear semantics for these concepts, we introduce a code generation strategy that obtains the implementation of these abstractions depending on the value of the framework dimensions. This strategy can be applied to current OO development methods in order to systematize the software production process in model-driven approaches.

Keywords

Conceptual Schema Domain Class Lower Multiplicity Publication Class Implementation Class 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    F. Civello. Roles for composite objects in object-oriented analysis and design. In ACM Press, editor, OOPSLA’93, pages 376–393, 1993. ISBN: 0-89791-587-9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Dahchour. Integrating Generic Relationships into Object Models Using Metaclasses. PhD thesis, Dept. Computing Science and Eng., Université Catholique de Louvian, Belgium, March 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.C. Goldstein and V.C. Storey. Data Abstractions: Why and How? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 29: 293–311, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group. Unified modeling language specification version 1.4. Technical report, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. Black and white diamonds. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, In Proceedings UML’99. The Unified Modeling Language Beyond the Standard, pages 550–565. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. What Is This Thing Called Aggregation? In J. Bosch R. Mitchell, A.C. Wills and B. Meyer, editors, Proceedings of TOOLS 29, pages 216–230, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1999. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Miller. What UML should be. Communications of the ACM, 45(11):67–69, November 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.J. Odell. Six different kinds of composition. Journal of Object Oriented Programming (JOOP), 5(8): 10–15, January 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.L. Opdahl, B. Henderson-Sellers, and F. Barbier. Ontological Analysis of Whole-Part Relationships in OO-models. Information and Software Technology, 43:387–399, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. Pastor, J. Gómez, E. Insfrán, and V. Pelechano. The OO-Method Approach for Information Systems Modelling: From Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling to Automated Programming. Information Systems, 26(7): 507–534, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Pirotte, E. Zimányi, and M. Dahchour. Generic Relationships in Information Modeling. Technical report, YEROSS TR-98/09 Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, December 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Saksena, R.B. France, and M.M. Larrondo-Petrie. A Characterization of Aggregation. In Springer, editor, Proceedings of OOIS’98, pages 11–19. C. Rolland and G. Grosz, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Snoeck and G. Dedene. Core Modelling Concepts to Define Aggregation. L’Objet, 7(1), February 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y. Wand, V.C. Storey, and R. Weber. An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4):494–528, December 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Winston, R. Chaffin, and D. Herrmann. A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Cognitive Science, 11:417–444, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manoli Albert
    • 1
  • Vicente Pelechano
    • 1
  • Joan Fons
    • 1
  • Marta Ruiz
    • 1
  • Oscar Pastor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputationValencia University of TechnologyValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations