Advertisement

Abstract

Fact-oriented modeling is a conceptual approach that enables one to model and query business domains in terms of the underlying facts of interest, where all facts and rules may be verbalized in language readily understandable by non-technical users of those business domains. Unlike Entity-Relationship modeling and object-oriented modeling, fact-oriented modeling treats all facts as relationships (unary, binary, ternary etc.). Grouping of facts into attribute-based structures (e.g. ER entities, UML objects, database relations, XML elements) is considered a lower level, implementation issue that is irrelevant to capturing the essential business semantics. This chapter provides a brief history of the fact-oriented modeling approach, illustrates its main concepts and benefits via a case study, reviews the current state of the art in terms of methodology and tooling perspectives, and identifies several topics for future research.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Object Type Object Constraint Language Fact Type Object Management Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Abrial, J.R. (1974) Data Semantics. In: Klimbie JW, Koffeman KL (eds) Data Base Management. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Azizah, F.N., Bakema, G. (2006) Data Modeling Patterns using Fully Communication Oriented Information Modeling. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1221–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Balsters, H., Carver, A., Halpin, T., Morgan, T. (2006) Modeling Dynamic Rules in ORM. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bakema, G., Zwart, J., van der Lek, H. (2000) Fully Communication Oriented Information Modelling. Ten Hagen Stam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bird, L.J. (1997) Data Reverse Engineering: From a relational database system to a 3-dimensional conceptual schema. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bird, L., Goodchild A, Halpin T (2000) Object Role Modeling and XML Schema. In: Conceptual Modeling — ER2000, Proc. 19th ER Conference, Salt Lake City, October 2000, LNCS vol 1920. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 309–322Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bloesch, A., Halpin, T. (1997) Conceptual queries using ConQuer-II. In: Proc ER’97: 16th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Modeling, LNCS vol 1331. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 113–126Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bollen, P. (2002) A Formal Transformation from Object Role Models to UML class diagrams. In: Proc. EMMSAD’02 Workshop, Toronto.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bollen, P. (2006) Using Fact-orientation for Instructional design. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Herrero P et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1231–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Bommel, P. van, Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weide, Th P. van der (2006) Exploring Modelling Strategies in a Meta-modelling Context. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1128–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bruza, P.D., Weide, Th P. van der (1989) The Semantics of TRIDL, Technical Report 89-17, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Campbell, L., Halpin, T. (1993) Automated Support for Conceptual to External Mapping. In: Brinkkemper S, Harmsen F (eds) Proc 4th Workshop on Next Generation CASE Tools, Univ. Twente Memoranda Informatica 93-32, Paris (June), pp 35–51Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Campbell, L., Halpin, T. (1994) The reverse engineering of relational databases. In: Proc 5th Workshop on Next Generation CASE Tools, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Campbell, L., Halpin, T., Proper, H. (1996) Conceptual Schemas with Abstractions: making flat conceptual schemas more comprehensible. Data Knowl Eng 20(1): 39–85.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Curland, M., Halpin, T. (2007) Model Driven Development with NORMA. In: Proc. HICSS-40, CD-ROM, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Cuyler, D., Halpin, T. (2005) Two Meta-Models for Object-Role Modeling. In: Krogstie J, Halpin T, Siau K (eds) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, Idea Publishing Group, Hershey, pp 17–42Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Chen, P.P. (1976) The entity-relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), pp 9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    De Troyer, O. (1993) On Data Schema Transformations, PhD thesis, Uni. Tilburg.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    De Troyer, O., Meersman, R. (1995) A logic framework for a semantics of object oriented data modeling. In: OOER’95: Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modeling, LNCS vol. 1021. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    De Troyer, O., Castelyn, S., Plessers, P. (2005). Using ORM to Model Web Systems. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Dietz, J.L.G. (2005) A World Ontology Specification Language. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 688–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Dietz, J.L.G., Halpin, T. (2004) Using DEMO and ORM in Concert: A Case Study. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 3, Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Dumas, M., Aldred, L., ter Hofstede, A. (2002) From Conceptual Models to Constrained Web Forms. In: Kashyap V, Shklar L (eds) Real World Semantic Web Applications, IOS Press, pp 50–68Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Embley, D.W. (1998) Object Database Development, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Embley, D.W., Wu, H.A., Pinkston, J.S., Czejdo, B. (1996) OSM-QL: a calculus-based graphical query language, Tech Report, Brigham Young University, UtahGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Evans, K. (2005) Requirements Engineering with ORM, In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Everest, G. (1994) Experiences teaching NIAM/OR modeling. In: Nijssen GM, Sharp J (eds), NIAM-ISDM 1994 Conf. Working papers, Albuquerque, pp N1–26Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Falkenberg, E. (1976) Concepts for modeling information. In: Nijssen GM (ed) Proc. 1976 IFIP Working Conf. on Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, North-Holland Publishing, pp 95–109Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Falkenberg, E., van der Weide, Th. P. (1988) Formal Description of the TOP Model, Technical Report 88-01, Department of Information Systems, University of NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Habrias, H. (1993) Normalized Object Oriented Method. In: Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, vol. 12, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 271–285Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Halpin, T. (1989) A Logical Analysis of Information Systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective, PhD thesis, University of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Halpin, T. (2000) Integrating fact-oriented modeling with object-oriented modeling. In: Siau K, Rossi M (eds) Information Modeling for the new Millenium, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 150–166Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Halpin, T. (2000) Modeling collections in UML and ORM. In: Proc EMMSAD’00: 5th IFIP WG8.1 Int Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Kista, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Halpin, T. (2001) Information Modeling and Relational Databases, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Halpin, T. (2002) Information Analysis in UML and ORM: a Comparison. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 1, Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Halpin, T. (2004) Comparing Metamodels for ER, ORM and UML Data Models. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 3, Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Halpin, T. (2004) Business Rule Verbalization. In: Doroshenko A, Halpin T, Liddle S, Mayr H (eds) Information Systems Technology and its Applications, Proc. ISTA-2004, Salt Lake City, Lec. Notes in Informatics, vol. P-48, pp 39–52Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Halpin, T. (2005) Constraints on Conceptual Join Paths. In: Krogstie J, Halpin T, Siau K (eds) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Halpin, T. (2005) Higher-Order Types and Information Modeling. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 4, Idea Pub. Group, Hershey, pp 218–237Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Halpin, T. (2005) Objectification. In: Castro J, Teniente E (eds) Proc. CAiSE’05 Workshops, FEUP, Porto, pp 519–532Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Halpin, T. (2005) Fact-Orientation Meets Agent-Orientation. In: Bresciani P et al. (eds) Agent-Oriented Information Systems II, LNAI vol 3508, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 97–109Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Halpin, T. (2005) Information Modeling in UML and ORM: A Comparison. In: Khosrow-Pour M (ed) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, vol. 3, Idea Publishing Group, Hershey, pp 1471–1475Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Halpin, T. (2005) ORM 2. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 676–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Halpin, T. (2006) Object-Role Modeling (ORM/NIAM). In: Bernus P, Mertins K, Schmidt G (eds) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, 2 nd edition, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, Heidelberg, pp 81–103Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Halpin, T. (2006) Business Rule Modality. In: Latour T, Petit M (eds) Proc. CAiSE’06 Workshops, Namur University Press, pp 383–394Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Halpin, T., Bloesch, A. (1999) Data modeling in UML and ORM: a comparison. Journal of Database Management, 10(4): 4–13Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Halpin, T., Curland, M. (2006) Automated Verbalization for ORM 2. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1181–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Halpin, T., Evans, K., Hallock, P., MacLean, W. (2003) Database Modeling with Microsoft® Visio for Enterprise Architects, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Halpin, T., Proper, H. 1995, ‘Subtyping and polymorphism in Object-Role Modeling’, Data and Knowledge Engineering, 15: 251–281.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Halpin, T, Proper, H. (1995) Database schema transformation and optimization. In: Papazoglou M (ed) OOER’95: Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modeling, LNCS vol 1021. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Halpin, T., Vermeir, D. (1997) Default reasoning in information systems. In: Database Applications Semantics, Chapman & Hall, London, pp 423–441Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Halpin, T., Wagner, G. (2003) Modeling Reactive Behavior in ORM’. Conceptual Modeling — ER2003, LNCS vol 2813. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 567–569Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (1993) Information Modelling in Data Intensive Domains, PhD thesis, University of NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Hansen, J., dela Cruz, N. (2006) Evolution of a Dynamic Multidimensional Denormalization Meta Model Using Object Role Modeling. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1160–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Henricksen, K., Indulska, J., McFadden, T. (2005) Modelling Context Information with ORM. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Proper, H.A., Weide, Th.P. van der (1993) Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models, Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 7, pp 489–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weide, Th.P van der (1993) Expressiveness in conceptual data modeling’, Data and Knowl Eng 10(1): 65–100zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lindeman, H., Properm H. (2006) Capturing Modeling Processes—Towards the MODial Modeling Laboratory. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1242–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weidem Th.P. van der (2005), Fact Calculus: Using ORM and Lisa-D to Reason about Domains. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 720–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Jarrar, M. (2005) Modularization and Automatic Composition of Object-Role Modeling (ORM) Schemes. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Keet, M. (2005) Using Abstractions to facilitate Management of Large ORM Models. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    Keet, M. (2006) Part-Whole Relations in Object-Role Models. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1118–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Kent, W. (1977) Entities and relationships in Information. In: Nijssen GM (ed) Proc 1977 IFIP Working Conf on Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, Nice, France, North-Holland Publishing, pp 67–91Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    Kent, W. (2000) Data and Reality, 2nd edition, 1stBooks Library, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Meersman, R. (1982) The RIDL conceptual language, Research report, Int. Centre for Information Analysis Services, Control Data Belgium, Brussels.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Mok, W., Embley, D. (1996) Transforming conceptual model to objectoriented database designs: practicalities, properties and peculiarities. In: Proc ER’96: 15th Int. Conf. on conceptual modeling, LNCS, vol. 1157. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Morgan, T. (2006) Some Features of State Machines in ORM. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1211–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Nijssen, G.M. (1976) A gross architecture for the next generation database management systems. In: Nijssen GM (ed) Proc. 1976 IFIP Working Conf. on Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, Freudenstadt, Germany, North-Holland PublishingGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Nijssen, G.M. (1977) Current issues in conceptual schema concepts. In: Nijssen GM (ed) Proc. 1977 IFIP Working Conf. on Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, Nice, France, North-Holland Publishing, pp 31–66Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Oaks, P., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., Spork, M. (2003) Extending conceptual models for web based applications, Conceptual Modeling — ER2003, Proc. 22nd ER Conference, Chicago, LNCS vol 2813. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 216–245Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Object Management Group 2003, UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. Online at: www.omg.org/uml.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Object Management Group 2005, UML OCL 2.0 Specification. Online at: http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-06-06.pdf.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Object Management Group 2006, Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules Interim Specification. Online at: www.omg.org/cgibin/doc?dtc/06-03-02.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    Pepels, B., Plasmeijer, R. (2005) Generating Applications from Object Role Models. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 656–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Pepels, B., Plasmeijer, R., Proper, H. (2006) Fact-Oriented Modeling from a Programming Language Designer’s Perspective. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1170–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Pierson, E., dela Cruz, N. (2005) Using Object Role Modeling for Effective In-house Decision Support Systems. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    Piprani, B. (2006) Using ORM-based Models as a Foundation for a data Quality Firewall in an Advanced Generation Data Warehouse. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1148–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    Proper, H.A. (1994) A Theory for Conceptual Modeling of Evolving Application Domains, PhD thesis, University of NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    Proper, H.A., Hoppenbrouwers SJB, Weide thP van der (2005) A Fact-Oriented Approach to Activity Modeling. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 666–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    Ritson, P., Halpin, T. (1993) Mapping Integrity Constraints to a Relational Schema. In: Proc. 4th Australian Conf on Inf. Systems, Brisbane, pp 381–400Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    Senko, M. (1975) Information systems: records, relations, sets, entities and things. Information Systems 1(1): 3–13zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. [82]
    Shoval, P., Shreiber, N. (1993) Database reverse engineering: from the relational to the binary relational model. Data and Knowl Eng 10: 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Sølvberg, A., Kung, C.H. (1993) Information Systems Engineering. Springer..Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    Spyns, P. (2005) Object Role Modeling for Ontology Engineering in the DOGMA Framework. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) OTM 2005 Workshops, LNCS vol 3762. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 710–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Trog, D., Vereecken, J., Christiaens, S., De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R. (2006) T-Lex: a Role-based Ontology Engineering Tool. In: Meersman R et al. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, LNCS vol 4278. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1191–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    Verheijen, G., van Bekkum, J. (1982) NIAM: an information analysis method. In: Information systems Design Methodologies: a comparative review, Proc. IFIP WG8.1 Working Conf., Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, North Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    Vermeir, D. (1983) Semantic hierarchies and abstractions in conceptual schemata. Information Systems 8(2): 117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A. (2003) The Object Constraint Language, 2nd edn, Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Wintraecken, J. (1990) The NIAM Information Analysis Method: Theory and Practice, Kluwer, Deventer, The NetherlandszbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
  1. 1.Neumont UniversityUtahUSA

Personalised recommendations