Data model for customizing db schemas based on business policies

  • Jun Sekine
  • Atsushi Kitai
  • Yoshihito Ooshima
  • Yasuhiro Oohara
Session 6a: Applied Modeling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1331)


One of the goals of data modeling has been to uniquely identify the data semantics of target applications and describe them in database schemas. In contrast to this approach, this paper proposes a data model that allows description of variable parts in data semantics and how each variable part is dependent on business policies. This is useful when describing database schemas for common software components that are used in applications with different business policies. A set of alternatives chosen from a specified set of business policies is converted to a set of primitives that describes how variable parts should be customized, thus enabling users to generate a database schema meeting some specific application requirements. The primitives uniformly describe a variety of customizations, such as inclusion and exclusion of database elements, changes in the characteristics of a database elements, and the composition of database elements. The model also serves as a basis of collecting and organizing a variety of business policies. Users can have a global view of how a database schema is affected by different business policy alternatives. A case study has shown that this model is applicable to real database schemas.


Object Class Integrity Constraint Variable Part Attribute Group Database Schema 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S. and Hull, R.: IFO; A Formal Semantic Database Model, in Proc. ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 119–132, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini, C. and Lenzerini, M.; A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration, ACM Computing Survey, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 323–364, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellinzona, R., Fugini, M. G., and Pernici, B., Reusing Specifications in 00 Applications, IEEE Software, No. 3, pp. 65–75, March 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booch, G., Object-Oriented Design with Applications, Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birrer, A. and Eggenschwiler T., Frameworks in the Financial Engineering Domain: An Experience Report, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 707, pp. 21–35, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brien, P. M., Niezette, M. et al., A Rule Language to Capture and Model Business Policy Specifications, in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'91), pp. 307–318, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castano, S, De Antonellis, V. and Zonta, B., Classifying and Reusing Conceptual Schemas, in Proc. 11th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach (ER'92), pp. 121–138, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castano, S, De Antonellis, V. and San Pietro, P., Reuse of Object-Oriented Requirement Specifications, in Proc. 12th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach (ER'93), pp. 339–351, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, P. P.: The Entity-Relationship Model-Toward a Unified View of Data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conklin, J. and Begeman M. L., gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Explanatory Policy Discussion, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 303–331, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Constatopoulos, P. and Pataki, E., A Browser for Software Reuse, in Proc. 4th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'92), pp. 304–326, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duwairi, R. M., Fiddian, N. J. and Gray, W. A., Schema Integration Meta-Knowledge Classification and Reuse, in Proc. 14th British National Conference on Databases (BNCOD 14), pp. 1–17, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fugini, M. G., Guggino, M. and Pernici, B., Reusing Requirements through a Modeling and Composition Support Tool, in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'91), pp. 50-78, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R, et. al., Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamada, M. and Adachi, H., Recording Software Design Process for Maintaining the Software, in Proc. 17th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 27–33, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammer, M. and McLeod, D.: Database Description with SDM; A Semantic Database Model, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 351–386, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC, Information Technology-Open Systems Interconnection–Structure of management Information — Part 4: Guidelines for the definition of managed objects, 10165-4, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21 N-9225, Open Systems Interconnection — Structure of Management Information — Part 7: General Relationship Model, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jarke, M. and Rose, T., Managing Knowledge about Information System Evolution, in Proc. ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 303–311, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jungclaus, R., Saake, G., Hartmann, T. and Sernadas, C., TROLL-A Language for Object-Oriented Specification of Information Systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 175–211, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nijssen, G. M.: A Gross Architecture for the Next Generation Database Management Systems, in Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, Nijssen, G. M. (ed.), North Holland, pp. 1–24, 1976.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park, S. and Palmer, J. D., A Feature Based Reuse Library, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 945, pp. 495–499, Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinheiro, F. A. C. and Goguen, J. A., An Object-Oriented Tool for Tracing Requirements, IEEE Software, No. 3, pp. 52–64, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramesh, B. and Dhar, V., Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberation During Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 498–510, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., et al., Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shipman, D. W.: The Functional Data Model and the Data Language DAPLEX, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 140–173, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Theodoulidis, C., Wangler, B. and Loucopoulos, P., Requirements Specification in TEMPORA, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 436, pp. 264–282, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sonnenberger, G. and Frei, H. P., Design of a Reusable IR Framework, in Proc. ACM SIGIR, pp. 49–57, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thieme, C. and Siebes, A., An Approach to Schema Integration Based on Transformations and Behaviour, in Proc. 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'94), pp. 297–310, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vlissides, J. M. and Linton, M. A., Unidraw: A Framework for Building DomainSpecific Graphical Editors, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 237–268, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Sekine
    • 1
  • Atsushi Kitai
    • 1
  • Yoshihito Ooshima
    • 1
  • Yasuhiro Oohara
    • 1
  1. 1.NTT Information and Communication Systems LaboratoriesYokosuka, KanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations