Compaction of Large Class Hierarchies in Databases for Chemical Engineering

  • M. Baumeister
  • M. Jarke
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)

Abstract

Engineering knowledge is characterized by variant and alternative designs for each problem. To alleviate reuse these variants should be captured as classes in the schema of the engineering database. The resulting class hierarchy may be bloated by intersection classes. This paper proposes a mechanism, called ”aspects”, which uses a restricted form of multiple instantiation to avoid intersection classes. Unlike similar approaches, such as ”roles”, our work allows various interdependencies between the different aspects of a class to be modelled. We demonstrate these abilities on an example taken from chemical process engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. [AGO95]
    A. Albano, G. Ghelli, and R. Orsini. Fibonacci: A programming language for object databases. VLDB Journal, 4 (3): 403–444, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AWSL92]
    Shamim Ahmed, Albert Wong, Duvvuru Sriram, and Robert Logcher. Object-oriented database management systems for engineering: A comparison. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, June 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [BC90]
    G. Bracha and W. Cook. Mixin-based inheritance. In Norman Meyrowitz, editor, Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications/Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 303–311, Ottawa, Canada, October 1990. ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BLM96]
    R. Bogusch, B. Lohmann, and W. Marquardt. Computer-aided process modeling with modkit. In Proceedings of Chemputers Europe III, Wiesbaden, October 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [BM97]
    R. Bogusch and W. Marquardt. A formal representation of process model eqations. Computers and chemical Engineering,21(10):1105–1115, 1997. extended version of presentation at ESCAPE’95.Google Scholar
  6. [BM98]
    M. Baumeister and W. Marquardt. The chemical engineering data model VeDa; Part 1: VDDL — the language definition. Technical report, RWTH Aachen, Lehrstuhl für Prozeßtechnik, 1998. (in preparation).Google Scholar
  7. [DLP+96]
    R. Dömges, B. Lohmann, K. Pohl, M. Jarke, and W. Marquardt. PROART/CE — an environment for managing the evolution of chemical process simulation models. In Proc. of the 10th European Simulation Multi-conference, pages 1012–1017, Budapest, Ungarn, Juni 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [FS97]
    M. Fowler and K. Scott. UML Distilled: Applying the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [GSR96]
    G. Gottlob, M. Schrefl, and B. Röck. Extending object-oriented systems with roles. Transactions on Information Systems, 14 (3), July 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [JGJ+95]
    M. Jarke, R. Gallersdörfer, M.A. Jeusfeld, M. Staudt, and S. Eherer. ConceptBase–a deductive object base for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, Special Issue on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, 4 (2): 167–192, March 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [Kat97]
    Ravi Kathuria. Improved modeling and design using assimilation and property modeling. Journal on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 15–24, January 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [Knu88]
    JOrgen Lindskov Knudsen. Name collision in multiple classification hierarchies. In S. Gjessing and K. Nygaard, editors, ECOOP ‘88, European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Oslo, Norway, volume 322 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 93–109, New York, N.Y., August 1988. Springer.Google Scholar
  13. [KS91]
    Won Kim and Jungyun Seo. Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. IEEE Computer, 24 (12): 12–18, December 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [LD94]
    Qing Li and Guohzu Dong. A framework for object migration in object- oriented databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 13: 221–242, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Mar96]
    W.Marquardt.Trends in computer–aided process modeling.Computers and chemical Engineering,20(6/7):591–609, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [Mey97]
    Bertrand Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York, N.Y., second edition, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. [Mez97]
    Mira Mezini. Dynamic object evolution without name collisions. In Mehmet Aksit and Satoshi Matsuoka, editors, European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), pages 190–219. LNCS 1241, Springer, Juni 1997.Google Scholar
  18. [MZ86]
    D. McAllester and R. Zabih. Boolean classes. In N. Meyrowitz, editor, Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), volume 21, pages 417–423, New York, NY, November 1986. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. [NR92]
    G.T. Nguyen and D. Rieu. Multiple object representations. In Proc. 20th ACM Computer Science Conference,pages 197–204, Kansas City (Mo), March 1992. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  20. [NRE92]
    G. T. Nguyen, D. Rieu, and J. Escamilla. An Object Model for Engineering Design. In O. Lehrmann Madsen, editor, Proceedings of the ECOOP ‘82 European Conference on Object-oriented Programming, LNCS 615, pages 233–251, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 1992. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Odb94]
    Erik Odberg. Category classes: Flexible classification and evolution in object-oriented databases. In Gerhard Wijers, Sjaak Brinkkemper, and Tony Wasserman, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE), LNCS 811. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [Ode92]
    James J. Odell. Dynamic and multiple classification. Journal on Object- Oriented Programming, 4 (8): 45–48, January 1992.Google Scholar
  23. [Pre97]
    Christian Prehofer. Feature-oriented programming: A fresh look at objects. In Mehmet Aksit and Satoshi Matsuoka, editors, 11th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 97), volume 1241 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 419–443, Jyväskylä, Finland, 9–13 June 1997. Springer.Google Scholar
  24. [RS91]
    J. Richardson and P. Schwarz. Aspects: Extending objects to support multiple, independent roles. In James Clifford and Roger King, editors, Proceedings of the 1991 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 298–307, Denver, Colorado, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Run92]
    Elke A. Rundensteiner. A class integration algorithm and its application for supporting consistent object views. Technical Report ICS-TR-92–50, University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science, May 1992.Google Scholar
  26. [SLL92]
    Tor G. Syvertsen, Frank Lillehagen, and Morten Lovstad. A generic object model for engineering design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, pages 157–166. Prentice Hall, Hempstead, UK, March-April 1992.Google Scholar
  27. [SLU89]
    L.A. Stein, H. Lieberman, and D. Ungar. A shared view of sharing: The treaty of Orlando. In Won Kim and F.H. Lochovsky, editors, Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases and Applications, pages 31–48. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. [WCL97]
    R.K. Wong, H.L. Chau, and F.H. Lochovsky. Dynamic knowledge representation in DOOR. In Knowledge and Data Engineering Workshop (KDEX’97), pages 89–96. IEEE, November 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [WdJS95]
    R.J. Wieringa, W. de Jonge, and P.A. Spruit. Using dynamic classes and role classes to model object migration. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 1 (1): 61–83, 1995.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Baumeister
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Jarke
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für ProzeßtechnikRWTH-AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Informatik VRWTH-AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations