An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling

ABSTRACT

Conceptual models or semantic data models were developed to capture the meaning of an application domain as perceived by someone. Moreover, concepts employed in semantic data models have recently been adopted in object-oriented approaches to systems analysis and design. To employ conceptual modeling constructs effectively, their meanings have to be defined rigorously. Often, however, rigorous definitions of these constructs are missing. This situation occurs especially in the case of the relationship construct. Empirical evidence shows that use of relationships is often problematical as a way of communicating the meaning of an application domain. For example, users of conceptual modeling methodologies are frequently confused about whether to show an association between things via a relationship, an entity, or an attribute. Because conceptual models are intended to capture knowledge about a real-world domain, we take the view that the meaning of modeling constructs should be sought in models of reality. Accordingly, we use ontology, which is the branch of philosophy dealing with models of reality, to analyze the meaning of common conceptual modeling constructs. Our analysis provides a precise definition of several conceptual modeling constructs. Based on our analysis, we derive rules for the use of relationships in entity-relationship conceptual modeling. Moreover, we show how the rules resolve ambiguities that exist in current practice and how they can enrich the capacity of an entity-relationship conceptual model to capture knowledge about an application domain.

REFERENCES

• 1: AGASSI, J. 1990. Ontology and its discontent. In Studies on Mario Bunge's Treatise, P. Weingartner and G. J. W. Dorn, Eds. Rodopi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 105-122.
• 2: ANGELES, P.A. 1981. Dictionary of Philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York, NY.
• 3: ASHENHURST, R. L. 1996. Ontological aspects of information modeling. Minds and Machines 6, 287-394.
• 4: Carlo Batini , Stefano Ceri , Shamkant B. Navathe, Conceptual database design: an Entity-relationship approach, Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1991
• 5: D. Batra , J. A. Hoffler , R. P. Bostrom, Comparing representations with relational and EER models, Communications of the ACM, v.33 n.2, p.126-139, Feb. 1990 [doi>10.1145/75577.75579]
• 6: BODART, F., PATEL, A., SIM, M., AND WEBER, R. 1998. Should the optional property construct be used in conceptual modeling?: A theory and three empirical tests. Unpublished working paper. University of Queensland, Australia.
• 7: BRODIE, M. L. 1984. On the development of data models. In On Conceptual Modeling, M. L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, and J. W. Schmidt, Eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 19-47.
• 8: BUNGE, M. 1977. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Vol. 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.
• 9: BUNGE, M. 1979. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Vol. 4: Ontology II: A World of Systems. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.
• 10: BURTON-JONES, A. AND WEBER, R. 1999. Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams. Unpublished working paper. University of Queensland, Australia.
• 11: Peter Pin-Shan Chen, The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.1 n.1, p.9-36, March 1976 [doi>10.1145/320434.320440]
• 12: Peter Coad , Edward Yourdon, Object-oriented analysis (2nd ed.), Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
• 13: C. J. Date, An introduction to database systems (7th ed.), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 14: Ramez Elmasri , Shamkant B. Navathe, Fundamentals of database systems, Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1989
• 15: Ramez Elmasri , Shamkant B. Navathe, Fundamentals of database systems (2nd ed.), Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1994
• 16: David W. Embley , Barry D. Kurtz , Scott N. Woodfield, Object-oriented systems analysis: a model-driven approach, Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
• 17: David W. Embley , Robert B. Jackson , Scott N. Woodfield, OO Systems Analysis: Is It or Isn't It?, IEEE Software, v.12 n.4, p.19-33, July 1995 [doi>10.1109/52.391825]
• 18: Christian Fahrner , Gottfried Vossen, A survey of database design transformations based on the Entity-Relationship model, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.15 n.3, p.213-250, June 1995 [doi>10.1016/0169-023X(95)00006-E]
• 19: GEMINO, A. 1998. To be or maybe to be: An empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modelling. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (May 30-June 2), Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada, 33-44.
• 20: GEMINO, A. 1999. Empirical methods for comparing system analysis modelling techniques. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
• 21: Robert C. Goldstein, Database, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1985
• 22: Robert C. Goldstein , Veda C. Storey, Some Findings on the Intuitivness of Entity-Relationship Constructs, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Enity-Relationship Approach to Database Design and Querying, p.9-23, October 18-20, 1989
• 23: Nicola Guarino, Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.43 n.5-6, p.625-640, Nov./Dec. 1995 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066]
• 24: Terry Halpin, Conceptual schema and relational database design (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996
• 25: Gary W. Hansen , James V. Hansen, Database management and design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
• 26: William Kent, Data and Reality: Basic Assumptions in Data Processing Reconsidered, Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, 1978
• 27: Fred R. McFadden , Jeffrey A. Hoffer, Modern database management (4th ed.), Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1994
• 28: Jeffrey Parsons , Yair Wand, Choosing classes in conceptual modeling, Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.6, p.63-69, June 1997 [doi>10.1145/255656.255700]
• 29: Dan Paulson , Yair Wand, An Automated Approach to Information Systems Decomposition, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.3, p.174-189, March 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.126767]
• 30: PRIETULA, M. J. AND MARCH, S. T. 1991. Form and substance in physical database design: An empirical study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 4 (Dec.), 287-314.
• 31: ROB, P. AND CORONEL, C. 1997. Database Systems: Course Technology. 3rd ed. International Thomson Computer Press, Boston, MA.
• 32: James Rumbaugh , Michael Blaha , William Premerlani , Frederick Eddy , William Lorensen, Object-oriented modeling and design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
• 33: Sally Shlaer , Stephen J. Mellor, Object-oriented systems analysis: modeling the world in data, Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1988
• 34: SIMONS, P. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Clarendon Press, New York, NY.
• 35: John Miles Smith , Diane C. P. Smith, Database abstractions: aggregation, Communications of the ACM, v.20 n.6, p.405-413, June 1977 [doi>10.1145/359605.359620]
• 36: TAKAGAKI, K. AND WAND, Y. 1991. An object-oriented information systems model based on ontology. In Proceedings of the IFIP Working Group 8.1 Conference on Object Oriented Approach to Information Systems (Quebec, Oct.), IFIP.
• 37: Toby J. Teorey , Dongqing Yang , James P. Fry, A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.18 n.2, p.197-222, June 1986 [doi>10.1145/7474.7475]
• 38: VARZI, A. 1994. On the boundary between mereology and topology. In Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences, R. Casati, B. Smith, and G. White, Eds. Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, Austria.
• 39: Yair Wand, A proposal for a formal model of objects, Object-oriented concepts, databases, and applications, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1989 [doi>10.1145/63320.66516]
• 40: Yair Wand , Richard Y. Wang, Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations, Communications of the ACM, v.39 n.11, p.86-95, Nov. 1996 [doi>10.1145/240455.240479]
• 41: WAND, Y. AND WEBER, R. 1989. An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis (Oct., Namur, Belgium),
• 42: Yair Wand , Ron Weber, An Ontological Model of an Information System, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.16 n.11, p.1282-1292, November 1990 [doi>10.1109/32.60316]
• 43: WAND, Y. AND WEBER, R. 1993. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 3, 217-237.
• 44: WAND, Y. AND WEBER, R. 1995. On the deep structure of information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 5, 203-223.
• 45: WEBER, R. 1996. Are attributes entities?: A study of database designers' memory structures. Inf. Syst. Res. 7, 2 (June), 137-162.
• 46: WEBER, R. 1997. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers and Lybrand, Melbourne, Australia.
• 47: WEBER, R. AND ZHANG, Y. 1996. An ontological evaluation of NIAM's grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 6, 2 (Apr.), 147-170.
• 48: Klaus Wimmer, Conceptual modelling based on ontological principles, Knowledge Acquisition, v.4 n.4, p.387-406, Dec. 1992 [doi>10.1016/1042-8143(92)90002-I]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
      H.2.1 Logical Design
          Subjects: Data models

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management
          Subjects: Systems analysis and design

General Terms:
Design, Theory

Keywords:
conceptual modeling, database design, entity-relationship model, object-oriented modeling, ontology, semantic data modeling