Dual Deep Instantiation and Its ConceptBase Implementation

  • Bernd Neumayr
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
  • Michael Schrefl
  • Christoph Schütz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8484)


Application integration requires the consideration of instance data and schema data. Instance data in one application may be schema data for another application, which gives rise to multiple instantiation levels. Using deep instantiation, an object may be deeply characterized by representing schema data about objects several instantiation levels below. Deep instantiation still demands a clear separation of instantiation levels: the source and target objects of a relationship must be at the same instantiation level. This separation is inadequate in the context of application integration. Dual deep instantiation (DDI), on the other hand, allows for relationships that connect objects at different instantiation levels. The depth of the characterization may be specified separately for each end of the relationship. In this paper, we present and implement set-theoretic predicates and axioms for the representation of conceptual models with DDI.


Conceptual Data Modeling Metamodeling Deep Characterization Powertypes 


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R.: Data functions, datalog and negation. SIGMOD Rec. 17(3), 143–153 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T.: Nivel: a metamodelling language with a formal semantics. Software and System Modeling 8(4), 521–549 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kennel, B.: A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6), 742–755 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The Essence of Multilevel Metamodeling. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Profiles in a strict metamodeling framework. Sci. Comput. Program. 44(1), 5–22 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costal, D., Gómez, C., Guizzardi, G.: Formal semantics and ontological analysis for understanding subsetting, specialization and redefinition of associations in UML. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 189–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksson, O., Henderson-Sellers, B., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ontological and linguistic metamodelling revisited: A language use approach. Information & Software Technology 55(12), 2099–2124 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software and System Modeling 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutheil, M., Kennel, B., Atkinson, C.: A Systematic Approach to Connectors in a Multi-level Modeling Environment. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 843–857. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic database modeling: survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Comput. Surv. 19(3), 201–260 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hürsch, W.L.: Should superclasses be abstract? In: Tokoro, M., Pareschi, R. (eds.) ECOOP 1994. LNCS, vol. 821, pp. 12–31. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jarke, M., Gallersdörfer, R., Jeusfeld, M.A., Staudt, M., Eherer, S.: ConceptBase - a deductive object base for meta data management. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 167–192 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeusfeld, M.A.: Complete list of O-Telos axioms (2005),
  14. 14.
    Jeusfeld, M.A., Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.): Metamodeling for Method Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klas, W., Schrefl, M.: Metaclasses and Their Application - Data Model Tailoring and Database Integration. Springer (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kühne, T., Schreiber, D.: Can programming be liberated from the two-level style: multi-level programming with deepjava. In: Gabriel, R.P., Bacon, D.F., Lopes, C.V., Jr., G.L.S. (eds.) OOPSLA, pp. 229–244. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kühne, T., Steimann, F.: Tiefe Charakterisierung. In: Rumpe, B., Hesse, W. (eds.) Modellierung. LNI, vol. 45, pp. 109–119. GI (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Deep meta-modelling with metaDepth. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) TOOLS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6141, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Cobos, R., Moreno-Llorena, J.: Extending deep meta-modelling for practical model-driven engineering. Comput. J. 57(1), 36–58 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S.: Model-driven engineering with domain-specific meta-modelling languages. In: Software & Systems Modeling, pp. 1–31 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M.: Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8(4), 325–362 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-Level Domain Modeling with M-Objects and M-Relationships. In: Link, S., Kirchberg, M. (eds.) APCCM. CRPIT, vol. 96, pp. 107–116. ACS, Wellington (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M., Thalheim, B.: Modeling techniques for multi-level abstraction. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 68–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pirotte, A., Zimányi, E., Massart, D., Yakusheva, T.: Materialization: A Powerful and Ubiquitous Abstraction Pattern. In: Bocca, J.B., Jarke, M., Zaniolo, C. (eds.) VLDB, vol. 0605, pp. 630–641. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Neumayr
    • 1
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
    • 2
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 1
  • Christoph Schütz
    • 1
  1. 1.Johannes Kepler University LinzAustria
  2. 2.University of SkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations