Advertisement

The Viewpoint Abstraction in ObjectOriented Modeling and the UML

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)

Abstract

In object-oriented (OO) development the viewpoint abstraction has attracted by far less attention than classical abstraction mechanisms, such as classification, generalization, and aggregation. In OO databases, however, recent research has produced powerful view concepts supporting customization, schema evolution, and updates of base objects through views. This paper discusses features of the viewpoint abstraction in the context of OO modeling and specifies extensions to the UML to support the modeling of views. We suggest employing an explicit notion of a view based on research on contexts and on OO databases in order to facilitate the customization of OO models through views. Further, the role of views to support an incremental development process will be discussed.

Keywords

Class Diagram Global Context View Class Class Customization View Mechanism 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Storey V., C.: Understanding Semantic Relationships. Very Large Database Journal, 2(4), (1993) 455–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R., Mylopoulos, J.: Classes and Instances. Int. Journal on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 1(1), (1992) 61–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R., Kaasboll J.: Part-Whole Relationship Categories and Their Application in Object-Oriented Analysis. IEEE TSE 11(5), (1999) 779–797Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuno H., Rundensteiner E.: Incremental Maintenance of Materialized Object-Oriented Views in MultiView: Strategies and Performance Evaluation. IEEE TKDE, 10(5), (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson I., Booch G., Rumbaugh J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Object Technology Series, (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R.: “An Integrating View on the Viewing Abstraction: Contexts and Perspectives in Software Development, AI, and Databases”; Journal of Systems Integration, Kluwer, 5 (1), (1995) 23–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R.: Requirements and Comparison of View Mechanisms for Object-Oriented Databases. Information Systems, 21(3), (1996) 229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rundensteiner E.: MultiView: A Methodology for Supporting Multiple Views in Object-Oriented Databases. Proc. of 18th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases, Vancouver, (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ra Y-G., Rundensteiner E., A.: A Transparent Schema-Evolution System Based on Object-Oriented View Technology. IEEE TKDE, 9(4), (1997), 600–624Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim W.: A Model of Queries in Object-Oriented Databases. In: Proc. of the Internat. Conf. on Very Large Databases, (1989) 423–432Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Date C., J.: An Introduction to Database Systems. Vol.1, 5th ed., Addisson-Wesley, (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rundensteiner E., A.: A Classification Algorithm for Supporting Object-Oriented Views. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, (1994) 18–25Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scholl M., H., Laasch C., Tresch M.: Updateable Views in Object Oriented Databases. In: Proc. of the 2nd Conf on DOOD, Munich, (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gottlob G., Paolini P., Zicari R.: Properties and Update Semantics of Consistent Views. ACM TODS, 13(4), (1988) 486–521zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin J., Odell J.:Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beeri, C.: New Data Models and Languages-the Challenge. In: Proc. of PODS 92, (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scholl M., Schek H., Tresch: Object-algebra and views for multi-objectbases.In: Oezsu et al. (ed.), Distributed Object Management, Morgan Kaufmann, (1993) 352–373Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nebel B.: Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable. Artificial Intelligence 43, (1990) 235–249zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    Gottlob G., Schrefl M., Röck B.: Extending Object-Oriented Systems with Roles. ACMTOIS, 14(3), (1996) 268–296Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R.: A Generic Framework for the Modeling of Contexts and its Applications. Data & Knowledge Engineering 32, (2000) 145–180zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 22.
    Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I., Booch G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Schett M.: Development of a Prototype for Embedding Views in the UML. Master’s Thesis; University of Vienna, Dept. of Computer Science and Business Informatics; (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Embley D., W., Kurtz B., D., Woodfield S., N.: Object-Oriented Systems Analysis—A Model-Driven Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Nuseibeh B., Kramer J., Finkelstein A.: A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specifications. IEEE TSE 20(10), (1994) 760–773Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Mylopoulos J., Motschnig-Pitrik R.: Partitioning Information Bases with Contexts. In: Proc. of the 3rd Internat. Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Vienna, (1995) 44–54Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Theodorakis M., Constantopoulos P.: Context-Based Naming in Information Bases. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 6(3&4), (1997) 269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Business InformaticsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations