Thanks for the link to the paper.
As I'm sure that you know, it is well over 300 pages and so it will take me some time to complete my review.
However, I have looked at Figure 7.10 and the surrounding text and my initial reaction to the paper is that it is based on some flawed assumptions.
In my 2008 MSc dissertation project, I spent quite a lot of time investigating the differences between UML and ORM.
Ambiguity is one of the main problems of UML. For example, UML guru Martin.Fowler said: “…the UML is so complex, that the standard is often open to multiple interpretations. Even UML leaders who reviewed this book would disagree on interpretation of the UML Standard.” Fowler (2004:13)
If you Google "Problems with UML" , you will see what I mean. So it seems to me that the term "UML standard" is an oxymoron.
I know that several people are using ORM for Data Warehousing and Data Mapping, and ETL etc. Some of these folks may be attending the ORM 2009 workshop in Portugal next week so I will discuss this with the assembled ORM experts and see what they have to say.
Reference:Fowler, M. (2004), UML Distilled, Third Edition: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, Boston, MA, Pearson Education Ltd.