Automatic Integrity Constraint Evolution due to Model Subtract Operations

  • Jordi Cabot
  • Jordi Conesa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3289)


When evolving Conceptual Schemas (CS) one of the most common operations is the removal of some model elements. This removal affects the set of integrity constraints (IC) defined over the CS. Most times they must be modified to remain consistent with the evolved CS. The aim of this paper is to define an automatic evolutionary method to delete only the minimum set of constraints (or some of their parts) needed to keep the consistency with the CS after subtract operations. We consider that a set of constraints is consistent with an evolved CS when: 1) none of them refer to an element removed from the original CS and 2) the set of constraints is equal or less restrictive than the original one. In this paper we present our method assuming CS defined in UML with ICs specified in OCL, but it can be applied to other languages with similar results.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Banerjee, J.: Data Model Issues for Object-Oriented Applications. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 5(1), 3–26 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brèche, P.: Advanced Primitives for Changing Schemas of Object Databases. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 476–495. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gogolla, M., Hohenstein, U.: Towards a Semantic View of an Extended Entity-Relationship Model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 16(3), 369–416 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gomez, C., Olivé, A.: Evolving Partitions in Conceptual Schemas in the UML. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 467–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpin, T.A.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3. Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base, J.J. van Griethuysen, ed. (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monk, S.: A Model for Schema Evolution in ObjectOriented Database Systems. PhD thesis, Lancaster University (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG, OMG Adopted Specification. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2002) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG. Request for proposal: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations. OMG (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG, OMG Adopted Specification, UML 2.0 OCL (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. Model Driven Architecture (MDA). OMG (2003) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Opdyke, W.F.: Refactoring Object-Oriented Frameworks. PhD thesis, University of Illinois (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porres, I.: Model refactorings as rule-based update transformations. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roddick, J.F., Craske, N.G., Richards, T.J.: A Taxonomy for Schema Versioning Based on the Relational and Entity Relationship Models. In: Elmasri, R.A., Kouramajian, V., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 1993. LNCS, vol. 823, pp. 137–148. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sjø, D.: Quantifying Schema Evolution. Information and Software Technology 35(1), 35–44 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jordi Conesa
    • 2
  1. 1.Estudis d’Informàtica i MultimèdiaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya 
  2. 2.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemas InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya 

Personalised recommendations