Deontic Database Constraints - From UML to SQL

Pedro Nogueira Ramos


Deontic constraints (obligations, forbiddances, violations) can be easily and explicitly represented in UML Class Diagrams. They deal with formal representation of requirements, which ideally should always be fulfilled, but can be violated, in atypical situations. In this paper we adopt and extend previous work on deontic constraints. Our contribution is the development of a tool that fully generates code based on UML Class Diagrams representation of those constraints. We overcome some limitations of previous work, and consequently we only adopt standard UML notations. Our tool (a Sybase PowerDesigner plugin) generates OCL constraints, a standard relational model, and SQL code to hold the deontic requirements. SQL is coded in views and triggers. Since we adopt a commercial tool, these enrichments will benefit any non-professional users.


  1. Boock, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., 1998. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. In AddisonWesley object technology series.
  2. Warmer, J., Kleppe, A., 2003. The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA (2nd Edition). Ed The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series .
  3. Ramos, P. 2008.. Contrary-to-duties Constraints: From UML to Relational Model. In ACM/IEEE 11th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems,Toulouse
  4. Wieringa, R. J., Meyer, J., 1991. Applications of Deontic Logics in Computer Science: a concise overview In J. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, , editors, Procs. First Int. Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science.
  5. Elliman, D. G., Burke, E., Weare, R. F., 1995. The automation of the timetabling process in higher education. Journal Educational Technol Systems, 257- 266.
  6. Scott Ambler. Mapping Objects to Relational Databases: O/R Mapping In Detail, (visited 10/01/2013)
  7. Carmo, J., Jones, A., 1996. A New Approach to ContraryTo-Duty Obligations. In, Defeseasible Deontic Logic, I, Donald Dute (ed.), Synthese Library
  8. Tan, Y., T. L., 1994. Representing Deontic Reasoning in a Diagnostic Framework, in ILCP'94 Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming, Genova, Italy.
  9. Loecher, S., Ocke, S., 2010. A metamodel-based OCLcompiler for UML and MOF.In Elsevier, editor, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Unified Modelling. San Francisco.
  10. Borgida, A., 1985. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions, in ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS).
  11. Borgida, A., Murata, T., 1999. Tolerating Exceptions in Workflows: A unified framework for Data and Process. in Proc. International Joint Conference on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration (WACC), USA.
  12. Briand, L. C., Dzidek, W., Labiche, Y., 2005. Using aspect-oriented programming to instrument OCL contracts in Java. Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 687-690, Budapest, Hungary
  13. (Dresden OCL Toolkit.) (visited in11/01/2010)
  14. spec/SBVR/1.0/, Semantics Of Business Vocabulary And Business Rules (SBVR), Version (visited 10/01/2013)
  15. esigner Sybase PowerDesigner. (visited 10/01/2013)

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Nogueira Ramos P. (2013). Deontic Database Constraints - From UML to SQL . In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-60-0, pages 102-109. DOI: 10.5220/0004415801020109

in Bibtex Style

author={Pedro Nogueira Ramos},
title={Deontic Database Constraints - From UML to SQL},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - Deontic Database Constraints - From UML to SQL
SN - 978-989-8565-60-0
AU - Nogueira Ramos P.
PY - 2013
SP - 102
EP - 109
DO - 10.5220/0004415801020109