Conceptual Modeling Quality - From EER to UML Schemas Evaluation

  • Samira Si-Said Cherfi
  • Jacky Akoka
  • Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2503)


This exploratory research investigates the evaluation process of conceptual specifications developed using either Extended Entity-Relationship (EER) or Unified Modeling Language (UML) conceptual models. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating EER and UML conceptual schemas. Furthermore, we define classes of metrics facilitating the evaluation process and leading to the choice of the appropriate representation among several schemas describing the same reality. Based on quality criteria proposed in the literature, we select a subset of criteria relevant to conceptual EER schema quality evaluation. For each criterion we define one or several metrics allowing the designer to measure the schema quality. We evaluate alternative EER conceptual schemas representing the same universe of discourse using the appropriate criteria and their associated metrics. Finally, we extrapolate this evaluation process to UML schemas. Following the development of our framework, we analyze a case study and provide evidence in the support of the usefulness of the framework.


Conceptual modeling quality quality criteria quality metrics user validation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davis A., Software Requirements: Analysis and Specification, Prentice Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zmud R., M. Lind, Young F., An attribute space for organisational communication channels. Information systems research, 1(4), 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kriebel C. H. Evaluating the quality of information systems. In design and implementation of computer based information systems. 1979Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey J. E., Pearson S. W., Development of a tool for measuring and analysing user satisfaction. Management science, 29(5), 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ives B., Olson M. H., Baroudi J. J., The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communication if the ACM, 26(10), 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Y. Wang, Henry B. Kon, S. E. Madnick: Data Quality Requirements Analysis and Modeling. Int. conf. on data engineering. 1993: 670–677Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang R. Y., Redy M. P., Kon H. B., Towards Quality Data: An attribute-based Approach. Decision Support Systems, 13, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wand Y., Wang R. Y., Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. In communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 11 November, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang R. Y., Strong D. M., Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. In journal of information systems (JMIS), 12(4), 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Batini, S. Ceri, S.B. Navathe, Conceptual database design: An entity relationsip approach, Benjamen Cummings, Redwood City, California, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindland, O.I., G. Sindre and A. Sølvberg, Understanding quality in conceptual modelling, IEEE Software, Vol. 11, No. 2, March 1994, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Assenova P., Johannesson P., Improving quality in conceptual modelling by the use of schema transformations. In the proceeding of ER’96. Cottbus, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teeuw B., Van Den Berg H., On the Quality of Conceptual Models. Proceedings of the ER’97 Workshop on Behavioral Models and Design Transformations: Issues and Opportunities in Conceptual Modeling 6–7 Nov. 1997, UCLA, Los Angeles, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moody D.L, Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity-Relationship Models, 17th Int. conf. in Conceptual Modeling (ER98), Singapore, LNCS 1507 (edLing, Ram, Lee eds).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moody D.L, Shanks G.G, Darke P, Improving the quality of entity-relationship models-experience in research and practice, 17th Int. Conf. in Conceptual Modeling (ER98), Singapore, LNCS 1507 (edLing, Ram, Lee eds).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reinhard Schuette, Thomas Rotthowe: The Guidelines of Modeling-An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models. ER 1998: 240–254Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genero M., Jiménez L., Piattini M., Measuring the quality if entity relationship diagrams, in the proceedings of ER2000 conf., LNCS 1920, pp. 513–526.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poels G., Dedene G., Measures for dynamic aspects of object-oriented conceptual schemes, in the proceedings of ER2000 conf., LNCS 1920, pp. 499–512.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Misic VB, Zhao JL. Evaluating the quality of reference models. In proceeding of the 19th Conf. on Conceptual Modeling ER2000, pp. 484–498.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, (Std 830-1993).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Booch G., Object Oriented Design with applications, Benjamin Cummings, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samira Si-Said Cherfi
    • 1
  • Jacky Akoka
    • 2
  • Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire CEDRIC-CNAMParis Cedex 03
  2. 2.Laboratoire CEDRIC-CNAM et INTParis
  3. 3.Université de Cergy-Pontoise et ESSECParis

Personalised recommendations