Advertisement

The semantics of parts versus aggregates in data/knowledge modelling

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
Conceptual Modeling II
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 685)

Abstract

The incorporation of semantics into conceptual models has for long been a goal of the data/knowledge modelling communities. Equally, conceptual models strive for a high degree of intuitiveness in order be better understood by their human users. This paper aims to go one step in this direction by introducing the part-of relation as a special case of aggregation. To do so we investigate the semantic constraints accompanying this specialization and suggest different ways of incorporating part-of semantics into data/knowledge models. Further, it is demonstrated that, in analogy with IS-A relations, part-of relations form hierarchies (dag's) which constitute an important conceptual aid in understanding complex systems. Finally, we investigate the conditions under which the part-of relation exhibits transitive behavior which can be exploited for automated inferences facilitated by the transitivity property.

keywords

data/knowledge modelling knowledge representation conceptual modelling semantic data models part-of relations object-oriented databases aggregation transitivity inference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bobrow, D.G., Stefik, M.J., “The LOOPS Manual”; Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto, December 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booch G.: “Object-Oriented Design with Applications”; Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida A.: “Knowledge Representation, Semantic Modeling: Similarities and Differences”; H. Kangassalo (editor), Entity-Relation Approach: The Core of Conceptual Modelling, Elscvicr Science Publishers B. V. (North Holland), 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida A., Mylopoulos J., Wong H.K.T.: “Generalization/Specialization as a Basis for Software Specification”; in: “On Conceptual Modelling”; Brodie M.L., Mylopoulos J., Schmidt J.W., editors, Springer-Verlag 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brachman R.: “On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks”, in Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, Findler, N., V., (ed.), New York, Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brachman R.J.: “What Is-a Is and Isn't: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks”; IEEE Computer, October 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brodie, M., L., Silva, E., “Active and Passive Component Modelling: ACM/PCM”; Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, Olle, Sol, Verrijn-Sluart, ed., North Holland Publ. Comp., 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brodie M.L., Mylopoulos J., Schmidt J.W., editors: “On Conceptual Modelling”; Springer, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coad P., Yourdon E.: “Object-Oriented Analysis”, Yourdon Press Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen P.P.S., “The Entity-Relationship Model — Towards a Unified View of Data”; ACM TODS, Vol.1, No.1, 9–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis J., P., Bonnell R., D.: “A Framework for Constructing Visual Knowledge Representation Specifications in Acquiring Organizational Knowledge”, in Knowledge Acquisition, Vol.3, No 1, p.79–115, March 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Champeaux D., Faure P.: “A Comparative Study of Object-Oriented Analysis Methods”, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, p. 21–33, March/April 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Embley D., W., Kurtz B., D., Woodfield S., N.: “Object-Oriented Systems Analysis — A Model-Driven Approach”, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fikes R.E., Kehler T.P.: “The Role of Frame-Based Representation in Reasoning”; in: CACM, September 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, A. and Robson, D., Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation, Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halasz, F., G., “Reflections on Notecards: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Hypermedia Systems”; CACM, Vol.31, No.7, 836–852, July 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammer, M., Mc Leod, D., “Database Description with SDM: A Semantic Database Model”; ACM TODS, Vol.6, No.3, 351–386, Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, R. and King, R., “Semantic Database Modelling: Survey, Applications and Research Issues”, ACM Computing Surveys 19(3), September 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackson, M., “System Develpoment”; Prentice Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, W., Bertino, E., Garza, J., F., “Composite Objects Revisited”; OOPSLA 89', 337–347, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koubarakis, M., Mylopoulos, J., Stanley, M, Borgida, A., “Telos: Features and Formalizalion”, KRR-TR-89-4, University of Toronto, Feb. 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lenzerini M, Nardi D., Simi M. (ed.): “Inheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages”, John Wiley & Sons, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin J., Odell J.: “Object-Oriented Analysis and Design”, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller, G., A., Johnson-Laird P., N., Language and Perception, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Motschnig-Pilrik R., “A Framework for the Support of a Common Structural Level for Software, Database-, and Knowledge Based Systems”; The Journal of Systems and Software, North Holland, Vol.12, No. 12, 157–165, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R., “Toward a Common Structural Level for Software, Database-, and Knowledge Based Systems”; Applied Artificial Intelligence, An Int. Journal, Hemisphere Publ., Vol.3, No.4, 405–426, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Motschnig-Pitrik R., Mylopoulos, J., “Classes and Instances”; Int. Journal on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol.1, No.1, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M. and Koubarakis, M., “Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, (to appear).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mylopoulos, J., “Object-Orientation and Knowledge Representation”, in Meersman, R. and Kent W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1FIP-TC 2 Working Conference on Database Semantics: Object-Oriented Databases-Analysis, Design and Construction, Windermere UK, July 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peekham J., Maryanski F.: “Semantic Data Models”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.20, No.3, p. 153–189, September 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pitrik, R., “Structuring Principles in the Design of Software Systems”, in: Advances in Computer Science; G. Lasker, ed., University of Windsor, Canada, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosch, E, “On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories”, in T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development in the Acquisition of Language, New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ross, D.T., “Structured Analysis (SA): A Language for Communicating Ideas”; IEEE TSE Vol. SE-3, No.1, 1977.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Storey, V., “Understanding Semantic Relationships”; Working Paper, University of Rochester, NY, January 1992; to appear in the Journal on Very Large Data Bases.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith J., Smith D.: “Data Abstractions: Aggregation and Generalization”, TODS, Vol.2, No.2, p. 105–133, June 1986.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Teorey, T., J., Yang, D., Fry, J., P., “A Logical Design Methodology for Relational Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model”; ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.18, No.2, 197–222, June 1986.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tversky B., Hemenway K.,: “Objects, Parts, and Categories”; Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol.113, No.2, 169–191, June 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ugagawa, Y., “Implementation and Evaluation of a Browsing Algorihm for Design Applications”; Proc. of the 7 th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, IEEE, 70–78, Kobe, Japan, April 8–12, 1991.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wand Y., Weber R.: “A Unified Model of Software and Data Decomposition”, Working Paper, Fac. of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of British Columbia, March 1991.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winston M. E., Chaffin R., Herrmann D.: “A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations”; Cognitive Science, Vol.11, 417–444, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations