Advertisement

A Formal Framework for Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams

  • Andrea Calì
  • Diego Calvanese
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2366)

Abstract

In this paper we formalize UML class diagrams in terms of a logic belonging to Description Logics, which are subsets of First-Order Logic that have been thoroughly investigated in Knowledge Representation. The logic we have devised is specifically tailored towards the high expressiveness of UML information structuring mechanisms, and allows one to formally model important properties which typically can only be specified by means of qualifiers. The logic is equipped with decidable reasoning procedures which can be profitably exploited in reasoning on UML class diagrams. This makes it possible to provide computer aided support during the application design phase in order to automatically detect relevant properties, such as inconsistencies and redundancies.

Keywords

Binary Relation Description Logic Class Diagram Expressive Power Formal Framework 
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.
    S. Bergamaschi and B. Nebel. Acquisition and validation of complex object database schemata supporting multiple inheritance. Applied Intelligence, 4(2): 185–203, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proc. of PODS’98, pages 149–158, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Reasoning in expressive description logics with fixpoints based on automata on infinite trees. In Proc. of IJCAI’99, pages 84–89, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Identification constraints and functional dependencies in description logics. In Proc. of IJCAI2001, pages 155–160, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Calvanese, M. Lenzerini, and D. Nardi. Description logics for conceptual data modeling. In J. Chomicki and G. Saake, editors, Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pages 229–264. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Clark and A. S. Evans. Foundations of the Unified Modeling Language. In D. Duke and A. Evans, editors, Proc. of the 2nd Northern Formal Methods Workshop. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf. Reasoning in description logics. In G. Brewka, editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, pages 193–238. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Evans, R. France, K. Lano, and B. Rumpe. The UML as a formal modeling notation. In H. Kilov, B. Rumpe, and I. Simmonds, editors, Proc. of the OOPSLA’97 Workshop on Object-oriented Behavioral Semantics, pages 75–81. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9737, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Evans, R. France, K. Lano, and B. Rumpe. Meta-modelling semantics of UML. In H. Kilov, editor, Behavioural Specifications for Businesses and Systems, chapter 2. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. S. Evans. Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques (WIFT’98). IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Haarslev and R. Möller. Expressive ABox reasoning with number restrictions, role hierarchies, and transitively closed roles. In Proc. of KR 2000, pages 273–284, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Harel and B. Rumpe. Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff. Technical Report MCS00-16, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of KR’ 98, pages 636–647, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Horrocks and P. F. Patel-Schneider. Optimizing description logic subsumption. J. of Log. and Comp., 9(3):267–293, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In H. Ganzinger, D. McAllester, and A. Voronkov, editors, Proc. of LPAR’99, number 1705 inLNAI, pages 161–180. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Kirk, A. Y. Levy, Y. Sagiv, and D. Srivastava. The Information Manifold. In Proceedings of the AAAI 1995 Spring Symp. on Information Gathering from Heterogeneous, Distributed Enviroments, pages 85–91, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. L. McGuinness and J. R. Wright. An industrial strength description logic-based configuration platform. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 69–77, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. Sattler. Terminological Knowledge Representation Systems in a Process Engineering Application. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Calì
    • 1
  • Diego Calvanese
    • 1
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations