Skip to main content

A Metamodel for OCL

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1723))

Abstract

The Object Constraint Language (OCL) allows the extension of UML models with constraints in a formal way. While the UML itself is defined by following a metamodeling approach, there is currently no equivalent definition for the OCL. We propose a metamodel for OCL that fills this gap. The benefit of a metamodel for OCL is that it precisely defines the syntax of all OCL concepts like types, expressions, and values in an abstract way and by means of UML features. Thus, all legal OCL expressions can be systematically derived and instantiated from the metamodel. We also show that our metamodel smoothly integrates with the UML metamodel. The focus of this work lies on the syntax of OCL; the metamodel does not include a definition of the semantics of constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ruth Breu, Ursula Hinkel, Christoph Hofmann, Cornel Klein, Barbara Paech, Bernhard Rumpe, and Veronika Thurner. Towards a formalization of the unified modeling language. In Mehmet Aksit and Satoshi Matsuoka, editors, ECOOP’97—Object-Oriented Programming, 11th European Conference, volume 1241 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 344–366, Jyväskylä, Finland, 9–13 June 1997. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jean-Michel Bruel. Transforming UML models to formal specifications. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andy Evans. Making UML precise. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robert France, Andy Evans, and Kevin Lano. The UML as a formal modeling notation. In Haim Kilov, Bernhard Rumpe, and Ian Simmonds, editors, Proceedings OOPSLA’97 Workshop on Object-oriented Behavioral Semantics, pages 75–81. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9737, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. Design Patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martin Gogolla and Mark Richters. Equivalence rules for UML class diagrams. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, Proceedings of UML’98 International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3–4, 1998, pages 87–96. ESSAIM, Mulhouse, France, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martin Gogolla and Mark Richters. On constraints and queries in UML. In Martin Schader and Axel Korthaus, editors, The Unified Modeling Language — Technical Aspects and Applications, pages 109–121. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ali Hamie. A formal semantics for checking and analysing UML models. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ali Hamie, Franco Civello, John Howse, Stuart Kent, and Richard Mitchell. Reflections on the object constraint language. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, Proceedings of UML’98 International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3–4, 1998, pages 137–145. ESSAIM, Mulhouse, France, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anneke Kleppe, Jos Warmer, and Steve Cook. Informal formality? the object constraint language and its application in the UML metamodel. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, Proceedings of UML’98 International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3–4, 1998, pages 127–136. ESSAIM, Mulhouse, France, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kevin Lano. Defining semantics for rigorous development in UML. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kevin Lano and Juan Bicarregui. Formalising the UML in structured temporal theories. In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications), pages 105–121. Technische Universität München, TUMI9813, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luis Mandel and MarÍa Victoria Cengarle. On the expressive power of the object constraint language OCL. Technical report, Forschungsinstitut für angewandte Software-Technologie (FAST e.V.), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. OMG, editor. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, Version 1.3 RTF, 2 July 1999. Object Management Group, Inc., Framingham, Mass., Internet: http://www.omg.org, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. OMG. Object Constraint Language Specification. In OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3, June 1999 [16], chapter 7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. OMG, editor. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3, June 1999. Object Management Group, Inc., Framingham, Mass., Internet: http://www.omg.org, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. OMG. UML Semantics. In OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3, June 1999 [16], chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mark Richters and Martin Gogolla. On formalizing the UML object constraint language OCL. In Tok Wang Ling, Sudha Ram, and Mong Li Lee, editors, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER’98), pages 449–464. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 1507, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bernhard Rumpe. A note on semantics (with an emphasis on UML). In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications), pages 177–197. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9813, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jos Warmer, John Hogg, Steve Cook, and Bran Selic. Experience with formal specification of CMM and UML. In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings ECOOP’97 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques, pages 167–171. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9725, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jos Warmer and Anneke Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Richters, M., Gogolla, M. (1999). A Metamodel for OCL. In: France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds) «UML»’99 — The Unified Modeling Language. UML 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1723. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66712-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46852-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics