![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to Conceptual Modelling and Ontologies , to evaluate the ontological correctness of a conceptual UML class model and to develop guidelines for how the constructs of the UML should be used in conceptual modeling. In particular, we discuss the UML metaconcepts of classes and objects, powertypes, association and aggregation/composition from an ontological point of view. We make some proposals of how to extend version 1.4 of the UML in order to obtain a more satisfactory treatment of aggregation. ![]() DiSC'03 © 2003 Association for Computing Machinery |