Generic unified modelling process for developing semantically rich, dynamic and temporal models

Models play a vital role in supporting a range of activities in numerous domains. We rely on models to support the design, visualisation, analysis and representation of parts of the world around us, and as such significant research effort has been invested into numerous areas of modelling; including support for model semantics, dynamic states and behaviour, temporal data storage and visualisation. Whilst these efforts have increased our capabilities and allowed us to create increasingly powerful software-based models, the process of developing models, supporting tools and /or data structures remains difficult, expensive and error-prone. In this paper we define from literature the key factors in assessing a model’s quality and usefulness: semantic richness, support for dynamic states and object behaviour, temporal data storage and visualisation. We also identify a number of shortcomings in both existing modelling standards and model development processes and propose a unified generic process to guide users through the development of semantically rich, dynamic and temporal models

UML Class Diagram or Entity Relationship Diagram : An Object Relational Impedance Mismatch

It is now nearly 30 years since Peter Chen’s watershed paper “The Entity-Relationship Model –towards a Unified View of Data”. [1] The entity relationship model and variations and extensions to ithave been taught in colleges and universities for many years. In his original paper Peter Chen looked at converting his new ER model to the then existing data structure diagrams for the Network model. In recent years there has been a tendency to use a Unified Modelling Language (UML) class diagram forconceptual modeling for relational databases, and several popular course text books use UMLnotation to some degree [2] [3]. However Object and Relational technology are based on different paradigms. In the paper we argue that the UML class diagram is more of a logical model (implementation specific). ER Diagrams on theother hand, are at a conceptual level of database design dealing with the main items and their relationships and not with implementation specific detail. UML focuses on OOAD (Object Oriented Analysis and Design) and is navigational and program dependent whereas the relational model is set based and exhibits data independence. The ER model provides a well-established set of mapping rules for mapping to a relational model. In this paper we look specifically at the areas which can cause problems for the novice databasedesigner due to this conceptual mismatch of two different paradigms. Firstly, transferring the mapping of a weak entity from an Entity Relationship model to UML and secondly the representation of structural constraints between objects. We look at the mixture of notations which students mistakenly use when modeling. This is often the result of different notations being used on different courses throughout their degree. Several of the popular text books at the moment use either a variation of ER,UML, or both for teaching database modeling. At the moment if a student picks up a text book they could be faced with either; one of the many ER variations, UML, UML and a variation of ER both covered separately, or UML and ER merged together. We regard this problem as a conceptual impedance mismatch. This problem is documented in [21] who have produced a catalogue of impedance mismatch problems between object-relational and relational paradigms. We regard the problems of using UML class diagrams for relational database design as a conceptual impedance mismatch as the Entity Relationship model does not have the structures in the model to deal with Object Oriented concepts Keywords: EERD, UML Class Diagram, Relational Database Design, Structural Constraints, relational and object database impedance mismatch. The ER model was originally put forward by Chen [1] and subsequently extensions have been added to add further semantics to the original model; mainly the concepts of specialisation, generalisation and aggregation. In this paper we refer to an Entity-Relationship model (ER) as the basic model and an extended or enhanced entity-relationship model (EER) as a model which includes the extra concepts. The ER and EER models are also often used to aid communication between the designer and the user at the requirements analysis stage. In this paper when we use the term “conceptual model” we mean a model that is not implementation specific.ISBN: 978-84-616-3847-5 3594Peer reviewe

On Agent-Based Software Engineering

Agent-based computing represents an exciting new synthesis both for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, more generally, Computer Science. It has the potential to significantly improve the theory and the practice of modeling, designing, and implementing computer systems. Yet, to date, there has been little systematic analysis of what makes the agent-based approach such an appealing and powerful computational model. Moreover, even less effort has been devoted to discussing the inherent disadvantages that stem from adopting an agent-oriented view. Here both sets of issues are explored. The standpoint of this analysis is the role of agent-based software in solving complex, real-world problems. In particular, it will be argued that the development of robust and scalable software systems requires autonomous agents that can complete their objectives while situated in a dynamic and uncertain environment, that can engage in rich, high-level social interactions, and that can operate within flexible organisational structures

Encapsulation and Aggregation

A notion of object ownership is introduced as a solution to difficult problems of specifying and reasoning about complex linked structures and of modeling aggregates (composit objects). Syntax and semantics are provided for extending Eiffel with language support for object ownership annotation and checking. The ideas also apply to other OOPLs such as C++

Steps Towards a Method for the Formal Modeling of Dynamic Objects

Fragments of a method to formally specify object-oriented models of a universe of discourse are presented. The task of finding such models is divided into three subtasks, object classification, event specification, and the specification of the life cycle of an object. Each of these subtasks is further subdivided, and for each of the subtasks heuristics are given that can aid the analyst in deciding how to represent a particular aspect of the real world. The main sources of inspiration are Jackson System Development, algebraic specification of data- and object types, and algebraic specification of processes

Implementing imperfect information in fuzzy databases

Information in real-world applications is often vague, imprecise and uncertain. Ignoring the inherent imperfect nature of real-world will undoubtedly introduce some deformation of human perception of real-world and may eliminate several substantial information, which may be very useful in several data-intensive applications. In database context, several fuzzy database models have been proposed. In these works, fuzziness is introduced at different levels. Common to all these proposals is the support of fuzziness at the attribute level. This paper proposes first a rich set of data types devoted to model the different kinds of imperfect information. The paper then proposes a formal approach to implement these data types. The proposed approach was implemented within a relational object database model but it is generic enough to be incorporated into other database models.ou

Pathways: Augmenting interoperability across scholarly repositories

In the emerging eScience environment, repositories of papers, datasets, software, etc., should be the foundation of a global and natively-digital scholarly communications system. The current infrastructure falls far short of this goal. Cross-repository interoperability must be augmented to support the many workflows and value-chains involved in scholarly communication. This will not be achieved through the promotion of single repository architecture or content representation, but instead requires an interoperability framework to connect the many heterogeneous systems that will exist. We present a simple data model and service architecture that augments repository interoperability to enable scholarly value-chains to be implemented. We describe an experiment that demonstrates how the proposed infrastructure can be deployed to implement the workflow involved in the creation of an overlay journal over several different repository systems (Fedora, aDORe, DSpace and arXiv).Comment: 18 pages. Accepted for International Journal on Digital Libraries special issue on Digital Libraries and eScienc