Entity-Relationship Modeling Re-revisited

  • Don Goelman
  • Il-Yeol Song
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3288)

Abstract

Since its introduction, the Entity-Relationship (ER) model has been the vehicle of choice in communicating the structure of a database schema in an implementation-independent fashion. Part of its popularity has no doubt been due to the clarity and simplicity of the associated pictorial Entity-Relationship Diagrams (“ERD’s”S) and to the dependable mapping it affords to a relational database schema. Although the model has been extended in different ways over the years, its basic properties have been remarkably stable. Even though the ER model has been seen as pretty well “settled,” some recent papers, notably [4] and [2 (from whose paper our title is derived)], have enumerated what their authors consider serious shortcomings of the ER model. They illustrate these by some interesting examples. We believe, however, that those examples are themselves questionable. In fact, while not claiming that the ER model is perfect, we do believe that the overhauls hinted at are probably not necessary and possibly counterproductive.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atzeni, P., Parker, D.S.: Assumptions in relational database theory. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (March 1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badia, A.: Entity-Relationship Modeling Revisited. SIGMOD Record 33(1), 77–82 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.: Conceptual Database Design. Benjamin/Cummings (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camps Paré, R.: From Ternary Relationship to Relational Tables: A Case against Common Beliefs. SIGMOD Record 31(20), 46–49 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, P.: The Entity-Relationship Model – towards a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connolly, T., Begg, C.: Database Systems, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietrich, S., Urban, S.: Beyond Relational Databases. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dullea, J., Song, I.-Y.: An Analysis of Cardinality Constraints in Redundant Relationships. In: Proceedings of Sixth International Conferences on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 1997), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 10-14, pp. 270–277 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dullea, J., Song, I.-Y., Lamprou, I.: An Analysis of Structural Validity in Entity- Relationship Modeling. Data and Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 167–205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genova, G., Llorenz, J., Martinez, P.: The meaning of multiplicity of n-ary associations in UML. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling 1(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, T., Song, I.-Y.: Analysis of binary/ternary cardinality combinations in entityrelationship modeling. Data & Knowledge Engineering 19(1), 39–64 (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, T., Song, I.-Y.: Binary Equivalents of Ternary Relationships in Entity- Relationship Modeling: a Logical Decomposition Approach. Journal of Database Management 11(2), 12–19 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacLane, S.: Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer, Heidelberg (1971)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markowitz, V., Shoshani, A.: Representing Extended Entity-Relationship Structures in Relational Databases: A Modular Approach. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 17(3), 423–464 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAllister, A.: Complete rules for n-ary relationship cardinality constraints. Data & Knowledge Engineering 27, 255–288 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Song, I.-Y., Evans, M., Park, E.K.: A Comparative Analysis of Entity-Relationship Diagrams. Journal of Computer and Software Engineering 3(4), 427–459 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teorey, T.: Database Modeling & Design, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Goelman
    • 1
  • Il-Yeol Song
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVillanova UniversityVillanovaUSA
  2. 2.College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations