Advertisement

Abstract

In the analysis phase of information systems development, it is important to have the conceptual schema validated by the business domain expert, to ensure that the schema accurately models the relevant aspects of the business domain. An effective way to facilitate this validation is to verbalize the schema in language that is both unambiguous and easily understood by the domain expert, who may be non-technical. Such verbalization has long been a major aspect of the Object-Role Modeling (ORM) approach, and basic support for verbalization exists in some ORM tools. Second generation ORM (ORM 2) significantly extends the expressibility of ORM models (e.g. deontic modalities, role value constraints, etc.). This paper discusses the automated support for verbalization of ORM 2 models provided by NORMA (Neumont ORM Architect), an open-source software tool that facilitates entry, validation, and mapping of ORM 2 models. NORMA supports verbalization patterns that go well beyond previous verbalization work. The verbalization for individual elements in the core ORM model is generated using an XSLT transform applied to an XML file that succinctly identifies different verbalization patterns and describes how phrases are combined to produce a readable verbalization. This paper discusses the XML patterns used to describe ORM constraints and the tightly coupled facilities that enable end-users to easily adapt the verbalization phrases to cater for different domain experts and native languages.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Object Constraint Language Uniqueness Constraint Business Rule Automate Support 
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.
    Atkins, C., Patrick, J.P.: NaLER: A natural language method for interpreting entity-relationship models. Campus-Wide Information Systems 17(3), 85–93 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakema, G., Zwart, J., van der Lek, H.: Fully Communication Oriented Information Modelling, Ten Hagen Stam, The Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker, R.: CASE*Method: Entity Relationship Modeling. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloesch, A., Halpin, T.: Conceptual queries using ConQuer-II. In: Embley, D.W. (ed.) ER 1997. LNCS, vol. 1331, pp. 113–126. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, P.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.
    Embley, D.: Object Database Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpin, T., Harding, J.: Automated support for verbalization of conceptual schemas. In: Brinkkemper, S., Harmsen, F. (eds.) Proc. 4th Workshop on Next Generation CASE Tools, Univ. Twente Memoranda Informatica 93-32, Paris, pp. 151–161 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: Business Rule Verbalization, Information Systems Technology and its Applications. In: Doroshenko, A., Halpin, T., Liddle, S., Mayr, H. (eds.) Proc. ISTA-2004, Salt Lake City. Lec. Notes in Informatics, vol. P-48, pp. 39–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: ORM 2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 676–687. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 14. Business Rules Journal 7(4) (2006), http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2006/b283.html
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T.: Business Rule Modality. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2006, pp. 383–394. Namur University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T., Curland, M.: CS445 Class 2006, ORM 2 Constraint Verbalization: Part 1, Technical Report ORM2-02, Neumont University, Available online at: http://www.orm.net/pdf/ORM2_TechReport2.pdf
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T., Evans, K., Hallock, P., MacLean, W.: Database Modeling with Microsoft® Visio for Enterprise Architects. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meersman, R.M.: The RIDL conceptual language. Research report, Int. Centre for Information Analysis Services, Control Data Belgium, Brussels (1982) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group, UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003), Online: www.omg.org/uml
  19. 19.
    Ross, R., Lam, G.: RuleSpeak Sentence Templates: Developing Rules Statements Using Sentence Patterns, Business Rule Solutions (2001), Online at: www.BRCommunity.com
  20. 20.
    Sowa, J.F.: Common Logic Controlled English (2004), Draft available online at: http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/specs.htm
  21. 21.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
  • Matthew Curland
    • 1
  1. 1.Neumont UniversityUtahUSA

Personalised recommendations