Specifying the Semantics of Operation Contracts in Conceptual Modeling

  • Anna Queralt
  • Ernest Teniente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4244)


This paper describes two different ways of understanding operation contracts in conceptual modeling: the strict and extended interpretations. The main difference between them lies in the way operation postconditions and integrity constraints are guaranteed, which has an impact on the desirable properties of operation contracts according to recommended good practice for requirements specification. Both interpretations are formalized and compared in terms of these properties. We find that the strict interpretation provides several advantages over the extended one. This conclusion is supported by evidence from a case study. The results of the case study also indicate that the strict interpretation significantly facilitates the specification task.


Structural Event Conceptual Schema Entity Type Integrity Constraint Business Rule 
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.
    IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (IEEE Std. 830 1998) (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J., Reiter, R.: On the frame problem in procedure specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 785–798 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costal, D., Sancho, M.R., Teniente, E.: Understanding Redundancy in UML Models for Object-Oriented Analysis. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 659–674. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, A.M.: Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devos, F., Steegmans, E.: Specifying Business Rules in Object-Oriented Analysis. Software and Systems Modeling 4, 297–309 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frias, L., Queralt, A., Olivé, A.: EU-Rent Car Rentals Specification. Departament de LSI, UPC, Technical Report LSI-03-59-R (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Proof of Correctness of Data Representations. Acta Informatica 1, 271–281 (1972)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base. In: van Griethuysen, J.J.(ed.) (1982) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, J., Odell, J.J.: Object-Oriented Methods. A Foundation. P T R Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, B.: Applying ‘Design by Contract’. Computer 25, 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mylopoulos, J., Bernstein, P.A., Wong, H.K.T.: A Language Facility for Designing Database-Intensive Applications. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 5, 185–207 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olivé, À.: Definition of Events and Their Effects in Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 136–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification (2003) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: On the Semantics of Operation Contracts in Conceptual Modeling. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: A Platform Independent Model for the Electronic Marketplace Domain. Departament de LSI, UPC, Technical Report LSI-05-9-R (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wieringa, R.: A Survey of Structured and Object -Oriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques. ACM Comput. Surv. 30, 459–527 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Queralt
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona CataloniaSpain

Personalised recommendations