Skip to main content

Universal Arrow Foundations for Visual Modeling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 1889)

Abstract

The goal of the paper is to explicate some common formal logic underlying various notational systems used in visual modeling. The idea is to treat the notational diversity as the diversity of visualizations of the same basic specificational format. It is argued that the task can be well approached in the arrow-diagram logic framework where specifications are directed graphs carrying a structure of diagram predicates and operations.

Keywords

  • Category Theory
  • Visual Modeling
  • Categorical Logic
  • Notational System
  • Diagrammatic Notation

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44590-0_30
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S. Abramsky. Interaction categories and communicating sequential processes. In A.W. Roscoe, editor, A Classical Mind: Essays in honour of C.A.R.Hoare, pages 1–15. Prentice Hall Int., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Atzeni and R. Torlone. Management of multiple models in an extensible database design tool. In Advances in Database Technology-EDBT’96, 5th Int.Conf. on Extending Database Technology, Springer LNCS 1057, 1996.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. A. Bagchi and C. Wells. Graph-based logic and sketches. In 10th Int.Congress of Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, 1995, Kluwer Acad.Publ., 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Barr and C. Wells. Category Theory for Computing Science. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Barwise and J. Etchemendy. A computational architecture for heterogeneous reasoning. In Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pages 1–27. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Batini, G. Battista, and G. Santucci. Structuring primitives for a dictionary of entity relationship data schemas. IEEE Trans. SE, 19(4):344–365, 1993.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. B. Cadish and Z. Diskin. Heterogenious view integration via sketches and equations. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems, Proc. 9th Int.Symposium, ISMIS’96, Springer LNAI’1079, pages 603–612, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. P. Chen. The entity-relationship model-Towards a unified view of data. ACM Trans.Database Syst., 1(1):9–36, 1976.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Z. Diskin. Formalization of graphical schemas: General sketch-based logic vs. heuristic pictures. In 10th Int.Congress of Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, 1995.Kluwer Acad.Publ., 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Z. Diskin. The arrow logic of meta-specifications: a formalized graph-based framework for structuring schema repositories. In B. Rumpe H. Kilov and I. Simmonds, editors, Seventh OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Semantics of OO Business and System Specifications), TUM-I9820, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Z. Diskin and B. Kadish. Variable set semantics for generalized sketches: Why ER is more object-oriented than OO. To appear in Data and Knowledge Engineering

    Google Scholar 

  12. Z. Diskin, B. Kadish, and F. Piessens. What vs. how of visual modeling: The arrow logic of graphic notations. In Behavioral specifications in businesses and systems. Kluwer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Goguen. Semiotic morphisms. Technical report,University of California at San Diego, 1997. TR-CS97-553.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Johnson and C. N. G. Dampney. On the value of commutative diagrams in information modeling. In Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, AMAST’93. Springer, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Lambek and P. Scott. Introduction to higher order categorical logic. Cambridge University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. W. Mineau, B. Moulin, and J. F. Sowa, editors. Conceptual graphs for knowledge representation. Number 699 in LNAI. Springer, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Spaccapietra, C. Parent, and Y. Dupont. View integration: a step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Trans. KDE, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., Johnson, M. (2000). Universal Arrow Foundations for Visual Modeling. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds) Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1889. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67915-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.