Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 871–889 | Cite as

Guidelines for representing complex cardinality constraints in binary and ternary relationships

  • Dolores Cuadra
  • Paloma Martínez
  • Elena Castro
  • Harith Al-Jumaily
Regular Paper

Abstract

Ternary relationships represent the association among three entities whose constraints database designers do not always know how to manage. In other words, it is very difficult for the designer to detect, represent and add constraints in a ternary relationship according to the domain requirements. To remedy the shortcomings in capturing the semantics required for the representation of this kind of relationship, the present paper discusses a practical method to motivate the designer’s use of ternary relationships in a methodological framework. The method shows how to calculate cardinality constraints in binary and ternary relationships and to preserve the associated semantics until the implementation phase of the database development method.

Keywords

Ternary associations Conceptual models Logical models Model transformations Database methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: Data Semantics, pp. 1–59. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Jumaily, H., Cuadra, D., Martinez, P.: The execution model to transform the associate semantics of cardinality constraints in a relational DBMS. In: Proceedings of the 4st International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Ciudad Real, Spain, April 2–6, pp. 819–822 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Jumaily, H., Cuadra, D., Martinez, P.: Applying a fuzzy approach to relaxing cardinality constraints. In: 15th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Lectures Notes, Zaragoza (Spain), pp. 654–662, September 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Jumaily, H., Cuadra, D., Martinez, P.: PANDORA CASE Tool: triggers generating for cardinality constraints in RDBMS. In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2003, Algarve (Portugal), pp. 999–1002, November 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Jumaily, H., Cuadra, D., Martinez, P.: Plugging Active Mechanisms to Control Dynamic Aspects Derived From The Multiplicity Constraint In UML. The Workshop of 7th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language. Doctoral symposium. Lisbon (Portugal), October (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badia A.: Entity-relationship modeling revisited. SIGMOD Record 33(1), 77–82 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barke R.: Case*Method: Entity Relationship Modelling. Addison Wesley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batini C., Ceri S., Navathe S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin/Cummings, San Francisco (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batra D., Zanakis H.: A conceptual database design approach based on rules and heuristics. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 3(3), 228–239 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Batra D., Antony S.R.: Novice errors in conceptual database design. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 3(1), 57–69 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruce T.A.: Designing Quality Databases with IDEF1X Information Models. Dorset House, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calí, A.: Querying Incomplete Data with Logic Programs: ER Strikes Back. Parent, C., et al. (eds.) ER 2007, LNCS 4801, pp. 245–260 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Camps R.: From ternary relationship to relational tables: a case against common beliefs. ACM/SIGMOD Record 31, 46–49 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castro, E., Cuadra, D., Martínez, P., Iglesias, A.: Integrating Intelligent Methodological Tutoring assistant in a CASE Platform: The PANDORA Experience, Informing Science + IT Education Conference 2002, Cork (Ireland), May 2002Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castro E., Cuadra D., Martínez P.: An empirical perspective of using ternary relationship in database conceptual modeling. Inf. Educ. 2(2), 191–200 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen P.P.: The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Codd E.F.: A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun. ACM 13(6), 377–387 (1970)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Codd E.F.: Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4(4), 397–434 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cuadra D., Iglesias A., Castro E., Martínez P.: Educational experiences detecting, using and representing ternary relationships in database design. IEEE Trans. Educ. 53(3), 358–364 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cuadra, D., Martínez, P., Castro, E.: Relationship cardinality constraints in relational database design. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. Idea Group Publishing, IV, pp. 2419–2424 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davies I., Green P., Rosemann M., Indulska M., Gallo S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice?. Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dullea, I.: Song, IL.-Y.: An analysis of the structural validity of ternary relationships in entity-relationship modeling. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 331–339, November 1998Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenberg, A., Melton, J., Kulkarni, K., Michels, J.E., Zemke, F.: SQL: 2003 Has Been Published. SIGMOD Record, 33, 1, March 2004Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elmasri R., Navathe S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fahrner C., Vossen G.: A survey of database design transformations based on the entity-relationship model. Data Knowl. Eng. 15, 213–250 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferg, S.: Cardinality concepts in entity relationship. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garcia-Molina H., Ullman J.D., Widom J.: Database Systems: The Complete Book, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gemino A., Wand Y.: Complexity and clarify in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 301–326 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Génova, G., Llorens, J., Martínez, P.: The meaning of multiplicity of N-ary associations in UML. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 1(2), 86–97 (2002). http://www.sosym.org/ Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases: from Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hansen G., Hansen J.: Database Management and Design. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harel D., Rumpe B.: Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of “Semantics”. IEEE Comput. 37, 64–71 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hartmann H.: On implication problem for cardinality constraints and functional dependencies. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 33, 253–307 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hartmann H., Link S., Trinh T.: Constraint acquisition for entity-relationship models. Data Knowl. Eng. 68, 1128–1155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    He Q., Wang Ling T.: An ontology based approach to the integration of entity-relationship schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 299–326 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iglesias, A., Martínez, P., Cuadra, D., Castro, E., Fernandez, F.: Learning to teach database design by trial and error. ICEIS 2002, Proceedings of the 4st International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 500–505, Ciudad Real, Spain, April 2–6, 2002Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ishakbeyoglu N., Z.M.: Maintenance of implication integrity constraints under updates to constraints. J. Very Large Database 7(2), 67–78 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jones T.H., Song IL-Y.: Binary equivalents of ternary relationships in entity-relationship modeling: a logical decomposition approach. J. Database Manag. 11, 12–19 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Korth H.F., Silberschatz A., Sudarshan S.: Database Systems Concepts, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martínez, P., De Miguel, A., Cuadra, D., Castro, E.: Data Conceptual Modeling through Natural Language: Identification and Validation of Relationship Cardinalities. Information Resources Management Association (IRMA 2000), Anchorage (EEUU), pp. 500–504, May 2000Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McAllister A.: Complete rules for n-ary relationship cardinality constraints. Data Knowl. Eng. 27, 255–288 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moody D.L., Shanks G.G.: Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework. Inf. Syst. 28, 619–650 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Zimányi, E.: Spatio-temporal conceptual models: data structures, space and time. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pp. 26–33 (1999)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Purchase H.C., Welland R., McGill M., Colpoys L.: Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 61, 187–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ram S., Khatri V.: A comprehensive framework for modeling set-based business rules during conceptual database design. Inf. Syst. 30, 89–118 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ramakrishnan, R., Gehrke, J.: Database Management Systems, 3rd edn. MacGraw-Hill (2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Rumbaugh J., Blaha M., Premerlani W.J.: Object Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Song I.Y., Evans M., Park E.K.: A comparative analisys of entity-relationship diagrams. J. Comput. Softw. Eng. 3(4), 427–457 (1995)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tardieu H., Rochfeld A., Coletti R.: La Méthode MERISE. Tome 1: Principles et Outils. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris (1983)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Teorey T.J., Yang D., Fry J.P.: A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput. Survey 18(2), 197–222 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Teorey T.J.: Database Modeling and Design: The Entity-Relationship Approach, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1999)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thalheim, B.: Achievements and problems of conceptual modelling, active conceptual modeling of learning. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4512, pp. 72–96 (2008)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thalheim B.: Entity-Relationship Modeling: Foundations of Database Technology. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Türker C., Gertz M.: Semantic integrity support in SQL:1999 and commercial relational database management systems. Int. J. Very Large Database 10(4), 241–269 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dolores Cuadra
    • 1
  • Paloma Martínez
    • 1
  • Elena Castro
    • 1
  • Harith Al-Jumaily
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarlos III University of MadridLeganésSpain

Personalised recommendations