Advertisement

What vs. How of Visual Modeling: The Arrow Logic of Graphic Notations

  • Zinovy Diskin
  • Boris Kadish
  • Frank Piessens
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 523)

Abstract

The goal of the paper is to explicate some universal 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

Predicate Symbol Visual Modeling Semantic Meaning Graphic Notation Notational System 
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. [Abr94]
    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. [BBS93]
    C. Batini, G. Battista, and G. Santucci. Structuring primitives for a dictionary of entity relationship data schemas. IEEE Trans.Soft.Engineering, 19(4): 344–365, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BJR99]
    G. Booch, I. Jacobson, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Modeling Language user guide. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [BW90]
    M. Barr and C. Wells. Category Theory for Computing Science. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [Dis97]
    Z. Diskin. Generalized sketches as an algebraic graph-based framework for semantic modeling and database design. Technical Report M9701, University of Latvia, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [Dis98a]
    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 00 Business and System Specifications, TUM-I9820, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [Dis98b]
    Z. Diskin. The arrow logic of visual modeling and taming heterogeneiuty of semantic models. In H. Kilov and B. Rumpe, editors, Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on 00 Business Specifications), TUM-19813, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [DK]
    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
  9. [GH91]
    M. Gogolla and U. Hohenstein. Towards a semantic view of an extended entity-relationship model. ACM Trans. Database Systems, 16(3): 369–116, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Gog96]
    J. Goguen. Formality and informality in requirement engineering. In Requirement engineering, 4th Int. Conference, pages 102–108. IEEE Computer Society, 1996. (keynote address).Google Scholar
  11. [Gog97]
    J. Goguen. Semiotic morphisms. Technical report, University of California at San Diego, 1997. TR-CS97-553.Google Scholar
  12. [Gog98]
    J. Goguen. Personal letter, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [KLW95]
    M. Kifer, G. Lausen, and J. Wu. Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal ACM, 42(4):741–843, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [KR98]
    H. Kilov and B. Rumpe. Overview of the Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise behavioral semantics (with an Emphasis on OO business specifications). In The Europian Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP’98, LNCS 1543. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. [LB98]
    K. Lano and J. Bicarregui. Formalising the UML in structured temporal theories. In H. Kilov and B. Rumpe, editors, Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications), TUM-I9813, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [MMS93]
    G.W Mineau, B. Moulin, and J.F. Sowa, editors. Conceptual graphs for knowledge representation. Number 699 in LNAI. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [RJB99]
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. [WJS94]
    R. Wieringa, W de Jonge, and P. Spruit. Roles and dynamic subclasses: a modal logic approach. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP’94, Springer LNCS, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [JCJO92]
    I. Jacobson, M. Christerson, P. Johnsson, and G. Üvergaard. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [KVS96]
    A.S. Klusener, S.F.M. van Vlijmen, and A. Schrijver. Compact dynamisch busstation. Technical Report CS-N9601, Centrum for Wiskunde en Infor-matica, May 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zinovy Diskin
    • 1
  • Boris Kadish
    • 2
  • Frank Piessens
    • 3
  1. 1.F.I.S. GroupLatvia
  2. 2.Zakaz.Com Inc.Latvia
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer ScienceK.U.LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations