A Comparison of the Business Object Notation and the Unified Modeling Language

  • Richard F. Paige
  • Jonathan S. Ostroff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1723)


Seamlessness, reversibility, and software contracting have been proposed as important techniques to be supported by object-oriented methods. These techniques are used to provide a framework for the comparison of two modeling languages, the Business Object Notation (BON) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Elements of the UML and its constraint language that do not support these techniques are discussed. Suggestions for further improvements to both BON and UML are described.


Modeling Language Object Constraint Language Predicate Logic Constraint Language Conceptual Construct 
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.
    F. Brooks. The Mythical Man Month, Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. D’Souza and A. Wills. Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach, Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Graham, J. Bischof, and B. Henderson-Sellers. Association considered a bad thing. Journal of Object-oriented Programming 9(9), February 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Graham. Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development, Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Hamie, F. Civello, J. Howse, S. Kent, and R. Mitchell. Reflections on the Object Constraint Language. In Proc. UML’98, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Hamie, J. Howse, and S. Kent. Interpreting the Object Constraint Language. In Proc. APSEC’98, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.A.R. Hoare. The Emperor’s Old Clothes. Turing Award Lecture 1980. ACM Turing Award Lectures, ACM Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Jackson. Software Requirements and Specifications, Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Kent and I. Maung. Quantified Assertions in Eiffel. In Proc. TOOLS Pacific 1995, Prentice-Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Meyer. UML: The Positive Spin. American Programmer, March 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.F. Paige and J.S. Ostroff. Developing BON as an Industrial-Strength Formal Method. In Proc. World Congress on Formal Methods (FM’99), Springer-Verlag, September 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.F. Paige and J.S. Ostroff. A Comparison of BON and UML. Technical Report CS-1999-03, York University, May 1999,
  14. 14.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Simons and I. Graham. 37 Things that Don’t Work in Object-Oriented Modeling with UML. In Proc. ECOOP’98 Workshops, TU-Munich Report 19813, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unified Modeling Language Specification. Object Management Group, 1998.
  17. 17.
    K. Walden and J.-M. Nerson. Seamless Object-Oriented Software Development, Prentice-Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Warmer and A. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard F. Paige
    • 1
  • Jonathan S. Ostroff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations