6.3.1 Modeling Concepts
The analyses of the domain model showed that most differences among the insurance
object types were related to the relationships they may have with each other rather
than to their individual property types. In fact, almost all the object types had the same
property types, those inherited from MOF. Figure 6.2 illustrates part of the original
domain model.
The large number of rules related to relationships between domain concepts led
to the de?¬?nition of multiple different object types. Each domain-speci?¬?c object type
then had related roles and constraints. Another alternative considered was having
just one object type with a classifying stereotype along with a constraint de?¬?nition
for connecting objects. This approach, however, was impractical since some objects
FIGURE 6.2 Part of the domain model
124 INSURANCE PRODUCTS
had additional properties, and it would make the constraints too complex to
de?¬?ne and maintain. The original domain model, having different object types
for each domain concept, also favored creating individual object types in the
language.
Language de?¬?nition started by categorizing the domain concepts into groups and
implementing the root concepts ?¬?rst. In the case of insurance products, these root
concepts are an insurance product and a bundle of insurance products.
Pages:
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251