Testing Conceptual Schema Satisfiability - Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering - page 281

an instance of RemoveOrder will Fai l , and the conceptual modeler will find out that
either the above event constraint or the cardinality constraint of Fig. 2 is incorrect.
4 Conclusion
We have shown that when conceptual schemas can be tested then their satisfiability
can be proved by testing. The idea is that for each entity or relationship or event
type in the schema the conceptual modeler sets up a test case such that if its verdict
is Pass then by definition the type under test is satisfiable. A single test case may
prove the satisfiability of several types. If a type is unsatisfiable then the conceptual
modeler is unable to set up such a test case, but in many practical cases testing
provides a clue that helps to uncover the faulty schema elements.
References
1. Berardi D, Calvanese D, De Giacomo G (2005) Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial
Intelligence 168(1-2):70-118
2. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) The unified modeling language reference manual,
2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
3. Brambilla M, Tziviskou C (2009) An online platform for semantic validation of UML models.
In: Proceedings of ICWE 2009. LNCS, vol 5648. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 477-480
4. Calvanese D, Lenzerini M (1994) On the interaction between ISA and cardinality constraints.
In: Proceedings of ICDE 1994, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 204-213
5. Clavel M, Egea M, de Dios MAG (2009) Checking unsatisfiability for OCL constraints.
In: Proceedings of OCL workshop MODELS 2009. http://modeling-languages.com/events/
OCLWorkshop2009/papers/3.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010
6. Costal D, Teniente E, Urpí T, Farré C (1996) Handling conceptual model validation by
planning. In: Proceedings of CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol 1080. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 255-271
7. Formica A (2003) Satisfiability of object-oriented database constraints with set and bag
attributes. Info Systems 28(3):213-224
8. Gogolla M, Kuhlmann M, Hamann L (2009) Consistency, independence and consequences in
UML and OCL models. In: Proceedings of TAP 2009. LNCS, vol 5668. Springer, Heidelberg,
pp 90-104
9. Halpin TA (2001) Information modeling and relational databases. Morgan Kaufmann,
New York
10. Jarrar M (2007) Towards automated reasoning on ORM schemes. In: Proceedings of ER 2007.
LNCS, vol 4801. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181-197
11. Olivé A (2007) Conceptual modeling of information systems. Springer, Berlin
12. Olivé A, Raventós R (2006) Modeling events as entities in object-oriented conceptual
modeling languages. Data Knowl Eng 58(3):243-262
13. OMG (2006) Object constraint language. Version 2.0, formal/2006-05-01. http://www.omg.
org/spec/OCL/2.0/. Accessed 20 Feb 2010
14. Parsons J, Wand Y (1997) Choosing classes in conceptual modeling. Commun ACM
40(6):63-69
15. Pastor O, Molina JC (2007) Model-driven architecture in practice. Springer, Heidelberg
16. Pernici B, Barbic F, Maiocchi R, Fugini MG, Rames JR, Rolland C (1989) C-TODOS: an
automatic tool for office system conceptual design. ACM Trans Inf Syst 7(4):378-419
17. Queralt A, Teniente E (2006) Reasoning on UML class diagrams with OCL constraints. In:
Proceedings of ER 2006. LNCS, vol 4215. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 497-512