OO Analysis Patterns as UML Metalevel Collaborations

  • Angeles Manjarrés
  • Simon Pickin
  • Gerson Sunyé
  • Damien Pollet
  • Jean Marc Jézéquel
Conference paper


A criticism that could be made of the most commonly-used AI development methodologies, in particular that based on the widely-known KADS-CommonKADS expertise model, is the unsuitability of the available techniques for specifying and reusing knowledge-model patterns. In this article, we investigate the alternative of formulating knowledge model patterns as OO analysis patterns. We seek to take advantage of research on design pattern specification, aimed at modelling patterns by means of structural and behavioural “metalevel” constraints. We illustrate our argument with the formulation of an OO “assessment pattern”.


Analysis Pattern Design Pattern Object Constraint Language Knowledge Model Object Management Group 
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.
    Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjewierden A et al.. Knowledge Engineering and Management. The CommonKADS Methodology. MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Harmelen F, Balder J. (ML)2: A Formal Language for KADS Models of Expertise. Knowledge Acquisition 1992; 4: 127 - 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schreiber G, Wielinga B, Akkermans J, Van de Velde W, Anjewierden A. CML: The CommonKADS conceptual modelling language. In: Steels L, Schreiber A TH, Van de Velde W (eds.), proceedings of European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop’94. Springer-Verlag, 1994 pp 1–5 (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence no. 236).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Eck P, Engelfriet J, Fensel D, Van Harmelen F, Venema Y, Willems, M.A Survey of Languages for Specifying Dynamics: a Knowledge Engineering Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fensel D, Benjamins R. Key Issues for Automated Problem-Solving Methods Reuse. In H. Prade (ed.), proceedings of 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-98). John Wiley and Sons, 1998, pp 63–67.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fensel D, Benjamins R, Motta E, Wielinga R. UPML: A framework for knowledge system reuse. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence. Estocolm, Swden, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fensel D, Motta E. Structured Development of Problem Solving Methods. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering 2001; 13, (6): 913–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fensel D, Straatman R. The essence of problem solving methods: Making assumptions for efficiency reasons. In Shadbolt N, O’Hara K, Schreiber G (eds.) Advances in Knowledge Acquisition. Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp 17–32 (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence no 1076 )Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG UML Specification. Object Management Group (OMG), Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. Version 1.4, September 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manjarrés A, Pickin S. Describing Generic Expertise Models as O.O. Analysis Patterns: the Heuristic Multi-Attribute Decision Pattern. Expert Systems, 2002; 19, no. 3 (28): 142–169.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manjarrés A., Pickin S. Describing AI Analysis Patterns with UML. In: Evans A, Kent S, Selic B (eds) proceedings of UML 2000, UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Springer-Verlag, 2000. ( Lecture Notes in Computer Science no. 1939 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le Guennec A, Sunyé G, Jézéquel JM. Precise Modeling of Design Patterns. In: Evans A, Kent S, Selic B (eds), proceedings of UML 2000, UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Springer Verlag, 2000. ( Lecture Notes in Computer Science no. 1939 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sunyé G, Le Guennec A, Jézéquel JM. Design Pattern Application in UML. In: Bertino E (ed) proceedings of ECOOP’2000. Springer Verlag, 2000. ( Lecture Notes in Computer Science no. 1850 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benjamins VR, Plaza E, Motta E et al.. An Intelligent Brokering Service for Knowledge Component reuse on the WWW. In: proceedings of 11th Workshop on Knowledge Adquisition, Modeling and Managment ’98. Banff, Canadá, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M. A Pattern Language. Oxford Univ. Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler M. Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models Addison-Wesley, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eden AH. Precise Specification of Design Patterns and Tool Support in Their Application. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tel Aviv, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warmer JB, Kleppe A. The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML. In Booch G, Jacobson I, Rumbaugh J. Eds. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Harmelen F, Aben M. Structure-preserving Specification Languages for Knowledge-Based Systems, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1996, 44.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ho WM Pennaneac’h F, Plouzeau N. Umlaut: A framework for weaving UML-based aspect-oriented designs. In: proceedings of Technology of object-oriented languages and systems (TOOLS Europe). IEEE Computer Society, 2000, pp 324-334 (volume 33).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angeles Manjarrés
    • 1
  • Simon Pickin
    • 2
  • Gerson Sunyé
    • 2
  • Damien Pollet
    • 2
  • Jean Marc Jézéquel
    • 2
  1. 1.Dpto. Int. Artif.UNEDMadridSpain
  2. 2.IRISA-INRIA, Campus de BeaulieuRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations