Determining the Structural Events That May Violate an Integrity Constraint

  • Jordi Cabot
  • Ernest Teniente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3273)

Abstract

Any implementation of an information system must ensure that an operation is only applied if its execution does not lead to a violation of any of the integrity constraints defined in its conceptual schema. In this paper we propose a method to automatically determine the operations that may potentially violate an OCL integrity constraint in conceptual schemas defined in the UML. This is done by determining the structural events that may violate the constraint and checking whether those events appear in the operation specification. In this way, our method helps to improve efficiency of integrity checking since its results can be used to discard many irrelevant tests.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Determining the structural events that may violate an integrity constraint. LSI Research Report, LSI-04-41-R (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ceri, S., Widom, J.: Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance. In: Proc. of the 16th VLDB Conference (VLDB 1990), pp. 566–577. Morgan Kauffman, San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demuth, B., Hussmann, H., Loecher, S.: OCL as a Specification Language for Business Rules in Database Applications. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 104–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Embley, D.W., Kurtz, B.D., Woodfield, S.N.: Object-Oriented Systems Analysis. A Model-Driven Approach, p. 302. Yourdon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, A., Mumick, I.S.: Maintenance of Materialized Views: Problems, Techniques and Applications. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 18(2), 3–18 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3, Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base, van Griethuysen, J.J.: (ed.), MarchGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mellor, S.J.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model Driven Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olivé, A.: Time and Change in Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lindencrona, E., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering. State of the Art and Research Themes, pp. 289–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG, “UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification”, OMG Adopted Specification Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG. MDA Guide Versión 1.0.1, http://www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf
  11. 11.
    OMG, UML 2.0 OCL, http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-14.pdf, OMG Adopted Specification
  12. 12.
    Project Technology, Object Action Language Manual, http://www.projtech.com/pdfs/bp/oal.pdf (visited March 2004)
  13. 13.
    Thalheim, B.: Entity-Relationship Modeling. Foundations of Database Technology, 627, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wieringa, R.: A survey of structured and object-oriented software specification methods and techniques. ACM Computing Surveys 30(4), 459–527 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona (Catalonia)

Personalised recommendations