Finite Model Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams Via Constraint Programming

  • Marco Cadoli
  • Diego Calvanese
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Toni Mancini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4733)


Finite model reasoning in UML class diagrams is an important task for assessing the quality of the analysis phase in the development of software applications in which it is assumed that the number of objects of the domain is finite. In this paper, we show how to encode finite model reasoning in UML class diagrams as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP), exploiting techniques developed in description logics. In doing so we set up and solve an intermediate CSP problem to deal with the explosion of “class combinations” arising in the encoding. To solve the resulting CSP problems we rely on the use of off-the-shelf tools for constraint modeling and programming. As a result, we obtain, to the best of our knowledge, the first implemented system that performs finite model reasoning on UML class diagrams.


Description Logic Class Diagram Constraint Satisfaction Problem Model Reasoning Class Hierarchy 
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.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Description logics for data bases. In: Baader et al., ch. 16, pp. 462–484 [1]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D.: Finite model reasoning in description logics. In: Proc. of KR 1996, pp. 292–303 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D.: Unrestricted and Finite Model Reasoning in Class-Based Representation Formalisms. PhD thesis, Dip. di Inf. e Sist., Univ. di Roma “La Sapienza” (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D.: Unifying class-based representation formalisms. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 199–240 (1999)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ILOG OPL Studio system version 3.6.1 user’s manual (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenzerini, M., Nobili, P.: On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Information Systems 15(4), 453–461 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Tendera, L.: The complexity of finite model reasoning in description logics. In: Baader, F. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE-19. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2741, pp. 60–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Hentenryck, P.: The OPL Optimization Programming Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Cadoli
    • 1
  • Diego Calvanese
    • 2
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Toni Mancini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dip. di Informatica e Sistemistica Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Via Ariosto 25, 00185 RomaItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, P. Domenicani 3, 39100 BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations