On the Semantics of Associations and Association Ends in UML

Association is one of the key concepts in UML that is intensively used in conceptual modeling. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that this concept is very old and is inherited from other successful modeling techniques, a fully unambiguous understanding of it, especially in correlation with other newer concepts connected with association ends, such as uniqueness, still does not exist. This paper describes a problem with one widely assumed interpretation of the uniqueness of association ends, the restrictive interpretation, and proposes an alternative, the intentional interpretation. Instead of restricting the association from having duplicate links, uniqueness of an association end in the intentional interpretation modifies the way in which the association end maps an object of the opposite class to a collection of objects of the class at that association end. If the association end is unique, the collection is a set obtained by projecting the collection of all linked objects. In that sense, the uniqueness of an association end modifies the view to the objects at that end, but does not constrain the underlying object structure. This paper demonstrates how the intentional interpretation improves expressiveness of the modeling language and has some other interesting advantages. Finally, this paper gives a completely formal definition of the concepts of association and association ends, along with the related notions of uniqueness, ordering, and multiplicity. The semantics of the UML actions on associations are also defined formally

[1]  Jürgen Dingel,et al.  Mappings, maps and tables: towards formal semantics for associations in UML2 , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[2]  J. Michael Spivey,et al.  The Z notation - a reference manual , 1992, Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science.

[3]  Robert B. France A Problem-Oriented Analysis of Basic UML Static Requirements Modeling Concepts , 1999, OOPSLA.

[4]  Peter P. Chen The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, VLDB '75.

[5]  Bran Selic On the Semantic Foundations of Standard UML 2.0 , 2004, SFM.

[6]  Hee Beng Kuan Tan,et al.  On Formalization of the Whole-Part Relationship in the Unified Modeling Language , 2003, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[7]  Jin Song Dong,et al.  The Geometry of Object Containment , 1994 .

[8]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[9]  Gunnar Overgaard A Formal Approach to Relationships in the Unified Modeling Language , 1998 .

[10]  Betty H. C. Cheng,et al.  A Formal Semantics for Object Model Diagrams , 1995, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[11]  Recitation Entity-Relationship Model , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[12]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

[13]  Dragan MiliMember On the Semantics of Associations and Association Ends in UML , 2007 .

[14]  Bran Selic,et al.  Evolution, not revolution , 2002, CACM.

[15]  Juan Llorens Morillo,et al.  The meaning of multiplicity of n-ary associations in UML , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[16]  Perdita Stevens On the interpretation of binary associations in the Unified Modelling Language , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[17]  Graeme Smith,et al.  The Object-Z Specification Language , 1999, Advances in Formal Methods.

[18]  Gunnar Övergaard,et al.  Formal specification of object-oriented modelling concepts , 2000 .

[19]  Bran Selic,et al.  The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[20]  Marco Bernardo,et al.  Formal methods for the design of real-time systems : International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems, SFM-RT 2004, Bertinoro, Italy, September 13-18, 2004 : Revised lectures , 2004 .

[21]  Juan Llorens Morillo,et al.  UML Associations: A Structural and Contextual View , 2004, J. Object Technol..