This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Existence Dependency: The Key to Semantic Integrity Between Structural and Behavioral Aspects of Object Types
April 1998 (vol. 24 no. 4)
pp. 233-251

Abstract—In object-oriented conceptual modeling, the generalization/specialization hierarchy and the whole/part relationship are prevalent classification schemes for object types. This paper presents an object-oriented conceptual model where, in the end, object types are classified according to two relationships only: existence dependency and generalization/specialization. Existence dependency captures some of the interesting semantics that are usually associated with the concept of aggregation (also called composition or Part Of relation), but in contrast with the latter concept, the semantics of existence dependency are very precise and its use clear cut. The key advantage of classifying object types according to existence dependency are the simplicity of the concept, its absolute unambiguity, and the fact that it enables to check conceptual schemes for semantic integrity and consistency. We will first define the notion of existence dependency and claim that it is always possible to classify objects according to this relationship, thus removing the necessity for the Part Of relation and other kinds of associations between object types. The second claim of this paper is that existence dependency is the key to semantic integrity checking to a level unknown to current object-oriented analysis methods. In other words: Existence dependency allows us to track and solve inconsistencies in an object-oriented conceptual schema.

[1] A.V. Aho and J.D. Ullman, The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling, Vol. 1: Parsing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972.
[2] J.C.M. Baeten, Procesalgebra. programmatuurkunde, Kluwer, 1986.
[3] G. Booch, Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1994.
[4] P.P. Chen, "The Entity Relationship Approach to Logical Database Design," QED Information Sciences.Mass: Wellesley College, 1977.
[5] P. Coad and E. Yourdon, Object-Oriented Analysis, second ed., Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1991.
[6] D. Coleman et al., Object‐Oriented Development: The Fusion Method, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1994.
[7] D. de Champeaux, D. Lea, and F. Penelope,Object-Oriented System Development, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993.
[8] G. Dedene and M. Snoeck, “M.E.R.O.DE.: A Model-Driven Entity-Relationship Object-Oriented Development Method,” Software Eng. Notes, Mar. 1994, pp. 51-61.
[9] G. Dedene and M. Snoeck, “Formal Deadlock Elimination in an Object Oriented Conceptual Schema,” Data and Knowledge Eng., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-30, 1995.
[10] D.W. Embley, B.D. Kurtz, and S.N. Woodfield, Object-Oriented Systems Analysis—A Model-Driven Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Yourdon Press, 1992.
[11] D. Harel, "On Visual Formalisms," Comm. ACM, May 1988, pp. 514-530.
[12] B. Henderson-Sellers, I.M. Graham, D. Firesmith, J.M. Edwards, R. Due, M. Page-Jones, T. Reenskaug, B. Selic, K. Whitehead, and E. Yourdon, "The OPEN Methodology," Object, Nov. 1996.
[13] C.A.R. Hoare, Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1985.
[14] J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman, Formal Languages and Their Relation to Automata. Addison-Wesley, 1969.
[15] M.A. Jackson, System Development, 418 pp.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1983.
[16] I. Jacobson et al., Object-Oriented Software Eng., A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1992
[17] H. Kilov and J. Ross, Information Modeling: An Object-Oriented Approach. Prentice Hall, 1994.
[18] W. Kim, E. Bertino, and J.F. Garza, “Composite Objects Revisited,” Proc. 1989 Int'l Conf. Management of Data, pp. 337-347, ACM SIGMOD, Portland, Ore., June 1989.
[19] R. Milner, A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag, vol. 92, 1980.
[20] Rational Software Corporation, "The Unified Modeling Language," Version 1.0.1, Mar. 1997. http://www.rational.comuml
[21] C.L. Chang, R.A. Stachowitz, and J.B. Combs, “Validation of Nonmonotonic Knowledge-Based Systems,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. Tools for Artificial Intelligence, Nov. 1990.
[22] S. Shlaer and S. Mellor, Object-Oriented Systems: Modeling the World in Data, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1988.
[23] S. Shlaer and S.J. Mellor, Object Lifecycles: Modeling the World in States, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1992.
[24] M. Snoeck and G. Dedene, “Generalization/Specialization and Role in Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling,” Data and Knowledge Eng., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 171-196, June 1996.
[25] M. Snoeck, "On a Process Algebra Approach to the Construction and Analysis of M.E.R.O.DE.-Based Conceptual Models," PhD dissertation, Faculty of Science, Dept. of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, May 1995.

Index Terms:
Software engineering, conceptual model, object-oriented analysis, existence dependency, aggregation, composition, quality, consistency checking.
Citation:
Monique Snoeck, Guido Dedene, "Existence Dependency: The Key to Semantic Integrity Between Structural and Behavioral Aspects of Object Types," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 233-251, April 1998, doi:10.1109/32.677182
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.