Advertisement

Abstract

Representing parthood relations in ORM has received little attention, despite its added-value of the semantics at the conceptual level. We introduce a high-level taxonomy of types of meronymic and mereological relations, use it to construct a decision procedure to determine which type of part-whole role is applicable, and incrementally add mandatory and uniqueness constraints. This enables the conceptual modeller to develop models that are closer to the real-world subject domain semantics, hence improve quality of the software.

Keywords

Decision Procedure Description Logic Object Type Parthood Relation Mass Noun 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E., Guarino, N., Pazzi, L.: Part-Whole Relations in Object-Centered Systems: an Overview. Data & Knowledge Engineering 20(3), 347–383 (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbier, F., Henderson-Sellers, B., Le Parc-Lacayrelle, A., Bruel, J.-M.: Formalization of the whole-part relationship in the Unified Modelling Language. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(5), 459–470 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 70–118 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bittner, T., Donnelly, M.: Computational ontologies of parthood, componenthood, and containment. In: Kaelbling, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2005 (IJCAI 2005), pp. 382–387 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franconi, E., Ng, G.: The iCom tool for intelligent conceptual modelling. In: 7th Intl Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases, Berlin, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerstl, P., Pribbenow, S.: Midwinters, end games, and body parts: a classification of part-whole relations. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 865–889 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. PhD Thesis, Telematica Institute, Twente University, Enschede, the Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.A.: A logical analysis of information systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: UML Data Models from an ORM Perspective (Part 8). Journal of Conceptual Modeling (8) (April 1999), http://www.inconcept.com/jcm
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, I.: On the transitivity of the parthood relation. In: Hochberg, H., Mulligan, K. (eds.) Relations and predicates, pp. 161–181. Frankfurt, Ontos Verlag (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keet, C.M.: Using abstractions to facilitate management of large ORM models and ontologies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 603–612. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology Library. WonderWeb Deliverable D18 (ver. 1.0, 31-12-2003) 2003, http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org
  14. 14.
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Kaasbøll, J.: Part-Whole Relationship Categories and Their Application in Object-Oriented Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 11(5), 779–797 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. v2.0. formal/05-07-04, http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04
  16. 16.
    Odell, J.J.: Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis & Design using UML. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.: Representing composites in conceptual modeling. Communications of the ACM 47(7), 77–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varzi, A.C.: Mereology. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 edn.) (2004) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/
  19. 19.
    Varzi, A.C.: The formal ontology of space: parts, wholes, and locations. In: Aiello, M., Pratt-Hartmann, I., van Benthem, J. (eds.) The Logic of Spacech, ch.1, p. 104. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2006) (date accessed: May 16, 2006), http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/papers/Space_2006.pdf
  20. 20.
    Varzi, A.C.: A Note on the Transitivity of Parthood. Applied Ontology (to appear)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vieu, L., Aurnague, M.: Part-of Relations, Functionality and Dependence. In: Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., Vieu, L. (eds.) Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winston, M.E., Chaffin, R., Herrmann, D.: A taxonomy of partwhole relations. Cognitive Science 11(4), 417–444 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Maria Keet
    • 1
  1. 1.KRDB Research Centre, Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations