Advertisement

The Entity-Relationship Data Model Considered Harmful

  • G. M. Nijssen
  • D. J. Duke
  • S. M. Twine

Abstract

In the world of Information Systems, the Entity-Relationship model (first defined by Chen in 1976) is widely taught and also widely used in practice. Despite the fact that the ER model is commonly considered a conceptual data model, it violates the Conceptualisation Principle as defined in the International Standards Organization report of 1982. In this paper, we will show that the ER model contains too many different ways to represent (or encode) the same proposition (or fact). Indeed, it is possible to claim that the ER model is essentially a reincarnation of the CODASYL DDL/DML model (as defined in the CODASYL DBTG report of 1971).

As the number of fact-encoding mechanisms increases, so must the complexity of any design procedure. This means that it is very difficult to provide the ER designer with effective prescriptive guidance on how to perform the design task.

The ER graphical notation is often claimed to be a good medium for communication between the users and the EDP professionals. We will show that this graphical notation does not support effective validation procedures that involve the user (the only person who truly knows the semantics of the application).

Keywords

Design Procedure Conceptual Schema Uniqueness Constraint Cardinality Constraint Informal Part 
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. Batini, C., 1987, Position Statement: E-R Modelling Versus Binary Modelling, Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach.Google Scholar
  2. Chen, P. P., 1976, The Entity-Relationship Model–Toward a Unified View of Data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1976, pp. 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CODASYL: Database Task Group Report,1971, ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Codd, E. F., 1970, A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 13, No. 6, June 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Date, C. J., 1986, An Introduction to Database Systems (Volume 1, 4th Edition),Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Dogac, A., and Chen, P. P., 1983, Entity-Relationship Model in the ANSI/SPARC Framework, Entity-Relationship Approach to Infonnation Modelling and Analysis, Chen, P. P., ed., North-Holland, pp. 357–374.Google Scholar
  7. Falkenberg, E., 1982, Foundations of the Conceptual Schema Approach to Information Systems, Lecture Notes of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Database Management and Applications, June 1–13, 1981, Portugal, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Kent, W., 1983, A Simple Guide to Five Normal Forms in Relational Database Theory, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 2, February 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kent, W., 1986, The Realities of Data: Basic Properties of Data Reconsidered, Proceedings of IFIP Conference on Data Semantics (DS-1), Steel, T. B., Jr., and Meersman, R., eds., Elsevier, North-Holland, pp. 175–188.Google Scholar
  10. Meersman, R., 1988, Towards Models for Practical Reasoning about Conceptual Database Design, Database Semantics (DS-2), Meersman, R., and Sernadas, A., eds., NorthHolland.Google Scholar
  11. Michie, D., 1983, Inductive Rule Generation in the Context of the Fifth Generation, Proceedings of the International Machine Leaming Workshop, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar
  12. Nijssen, G. M., 1975, Two Major Flaws in the CODASYL DDL 1973 and Proposed Corrections, Information Systems 1, Pergamon, pp. 114–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nijssen, G. M., 1986, On Experience with Large-Scale Teaching and Use of Fact-based Conceptual Schemas in Industry and University, Proceedings of IFIP Conference on Data Semantics (DS-1), Meersman, R., and Steel, T. B., Jr., eds., Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Nijssen, G. M., and Halpin, T. A., 1989, Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design: A Fact-Based Approach,Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Parent, C., and Spaccapietra, S., 1985, Enhancing the Operational Semantics of the Entity-Relationship Model, Database Semantics DS-1, Steel, T. B., jr., and Meersman, R., eds., Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenthal, A., and Reiner, D., 1987, Theoretically Sound Transformations for Practical Database Design, Proceedings 6th Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach.Google Scholar
  17. Sowa, J. F., 1988, Knowledge Representation in Databases, Expert Systems, and Natural Language, Proceedings IFIP WG2.6/WG8.1 Conference on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Databases and Expert Systems, Guangzhou, China, July 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Teorey, R. J., Yang, D., and Fry, J. P., 1986, A Logical Design Methodology for Relational Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model, Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986, pp. 197–222.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsichritzis, D. C., and Lochovsky, F. H., 1976, Hierarchical Database Management: A Survey, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Twine, S., 1988(a), Towards a Knowledge Engineering Procedure, Proceedings Expert Systems ‘88, Brighton, UK, December 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Twine, S., 1988(b), From Information Analysis Towards Knowledge Analysis, Proceedings 2nd European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, June 1988.Google Scholar
  22. van Griethuysen, J. J., ed., 1982, Concepts and Tenninology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base,Report of ISO TC97/SC5/WGS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Nijssen
    • 1
  • D. J. Duke
    • 1
  • S. M. Twine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations