Formalizing materialization using a metaclass approach

  • Mohamed Dahchour
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1413)


Materialization is a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern for conceptual modeling. Intuitively, it relates a class of categories (e.g., models of cars) and a class of more concrete objects (e.g., individual cars). This paper formalizes the semantics of materialization using the metaclass approach of the TELOS data model. Formulas can be uniformly attached to classes, metaclasses, and meta-attributes to enforce integrity constraints and deductive rules relevant to materialization semantics. The paper also proposes some suggestions for extending TELOS to capture some materialization semantics which cannot be represented with the available constructs.


Object Orientation Materialization Relationship Metaclass TELOS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Dah97]
    M. Dahchour. Formalizing materialization in the TELOS data model. Technical Report TR-97/28, IAG-QANT, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, November 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [DPZ96]
    M. Dahchour, A. Pirotte, and E. Zimányi. Metaclass implementation of materialization. Technical Report YEROOS TR-96/06, January 1996. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  3. [DPZ97]
    M. Dahchour, A. Pirotte, and E. Zimányi. Metaclass implementations of generic relationships. Technical Report YEROOS TR-97/25, 1997. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  4. [GSR96]
    G. Gottlob, M. Schrefl, and B. Röck. Extending object-oriented systems with roles. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems, 14(3):268–296, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [HGPK94]
    M. Halper, J. Geller, Y. Perl, and W. Klas. Integrating a part relationship into an open OODB system using metaclasses. In N.R. Adam, B.K. Bhargava, and Y. Yesha, editors, Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM'94, pages 10–17, Gaithersburg, Maryland, November 1994. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. [HPYG95]
    M. Halper, Y. Perl, 0. Yang, and J. Geller. Modeling business applications with the OODB ownership Relationship. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on AI Applications on Wall St., pages 2–10, June 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [JJS96]
    M. Jarke, M.A. Jeusfeld, and M. Staudt. ConceptBase V4.1 User Manual. 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [KFP88]
    G. E. Kaiser, P. H. Feiler, and S. S. Popovich. Intelligent assistance for software development and maintenance. IEEE Software, 5(3):40–49, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [KP97]
    M. Kolp and A. Pirotte. An aggregation model and its C++ implementation. In Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  10. [KS95]
    W. Klas and M. Schrefl. Metaclasses and their application. LNCS 943. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [Lie86]
    H. Lieberman. Using prototypical objects to implement shared behavior in object oriented systems. In N.K. Meyrowitz, editor, Proc. of the Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, OOPSLA '86, pages 214–223, Portland, Oregon, November 1986. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 21(11), 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [MBJK90]
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: representing knowledge about informations systems. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems, 8(4):325–362, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [MP93]
    R. Motschnig-Pitrik. The semantics of parts versus aggregates in data/knowledge modelling. In C. Rolland, F. Bodart, and C. Cauvet, editors, Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE'93, LNCS 685, pages 352–373, Paris, France, June 1993. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. [MPK96]
    R. Motschnig-Pitrik and J. Kaasboll. Part-whole relationship categories and their application in object-oriented analysis. In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Information System Development, ISD '96, September 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [MPS95]
    R. Motschnig-Pitrik and V.C. Storey. Modelling of set membership: The notion and the issues. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 16(2):147–185, 1995.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [PZMY94]
    A. Pirotte, E. Zimányi, D. Massart, and T. Yakusheva. Materialization: a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern. In J. Bocca, M. Jarke, and C. Zaniolo, editors, Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases, VLDB'94, pages 630–641, Santiago, Chile, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  17. [WDJS94]
    R. Wieringa, W. De Jonge, and P. Spruit. Roles and dynamic subclasses: a modal logic approach. In M. Tokoro and R. Pareschi, editors, Proc. of the 8th European Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP'94, LNCS 821, pages 32–59, Bologna, Italy, July 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Dahchour
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Louvain, INGILouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations