Fact-oriented modeling approaches such as Object-Role Modeling (ORM) have long supported several varieties of ring constraints, such as irreflexivity, asymmetry, intransitivity, and acyclicity, on pairs of compatible roles. The latest version of the Web Ontology Language (OWL 2) supports five kinds of ring constraint on binary predicates. Recently, three more ring constraint types (local reflexivity, strong intransitivity, and transitivity) were added to ORM. This paper discusses these new additions to ORM, as implemented in the Natural ORM Architect (NORMA) tool, and identifies important ways in which ORM and OWL differ in their support for ring constraints, while noting different mapping alternatives. We determine which combinations of elements from this expanded set of ring constraints are permitted, and provide verbalization patterns for the new additions. Graphical shapes for the new constraints and constraint combinations are introduced and motivated, and NORMA’s new user interface for entry of ring constraints is illustrated.


Unify Modeling Language Ring Type Derivation Rule Constraint Shape Binary Predicate 
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.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curland, M., Halpin, T.: The NORMA Software Tool for ORM 2. In: Soffer, P., Proper, E. (eds.) CAiSE Forum 2010. LNBIP, vol. 72, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halpin, T.: A Logical Analysis of Information Systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland (1989),
  5. 5.
    Halpin, T.: ORM 2. In: Meersman, R., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 676–687. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpin, T.: ORM/NIAM Object-Role Modeling. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Information Systems Architectures, 2nd edn., pp. 81–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpin, T.: Modality of Business Rules. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Research Issues in Systems Analysis and Design, Databases and Software Development, pp. 206–226. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: Fact-Oriented Modeling: Past, Present and Future. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 19–38. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling. In: Liu, L., Tamer Ozsu, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling: Principles and Benefits. International Journal of Information Systems Modeling and Design 1(1), 32–54 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T., Curland, M.: Automated Verbalization for ORM 2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1181–1190. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T., Curland, M., Stirewalt, K., Viswanath, N., McGill, M., Beck, S.: Mapping ORM to Datalog: An Overview. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 504–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T., Wijbenga, J.: FORML 2. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Hofstede, A., Proper, H., van der Weide, T.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ritson, P.: Use of Conceptual Schemas for a Relational Implementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003),
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: UML OCL 2.0 Specification (2005),
  19. 19.
    Wintraecken, J.: The NIAM Information Analysis Method: Theory and Practice. Kluwer, Deventer (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Primer (2009),
  21. 21.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics (2009),
  22. 22.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax (2009),
  23. 23.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (2009),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
  • Matthew Curland
    • 2
  1. 1.LogicBloxAustralia and INTI International UniversityMalaysia
  2. 2.LogicBloxUSA

Personalised recommendations