Collection Type Constructors in Entity-Relationship Modeling

  • Sven Hartmann
  • Sebastian Link
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4801)


Collections play an important part in everyday life. Therefore, conceptual data models should support collection types to make data modeling as natural as possible for its users. Based on the fundamental properties of endorsing order and multiplicity of its elements we introduce the collection types of rankings, lists, sets and bags into the framework of Entity-Relationship modeling. This provides users with easy-to-use constructors that naturally model different kinds of collections. Moreover, we propose a transformation of extended ER schemata into relational database schemata. The transformation is intuitive and invertable introducing surrogate attributes that preserve the semantics of the collection. Furthermore, it is a proper extension to previous transformations, and results in a relational database schema that is in Inclusion Dependency Normal Form. In addition, we introduce a uniqueness constraint that identifies collections uniquely and guarantees referential integrity at the same time.


Object Type Entity Type Relationship Type Collection Type List Type 
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., Buneman, P., Suciu, D.: Data on the Web: From Relations to Semistructured Data and XML. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, M., Bancilhon, F., DeWitt, D., Dittrich, K., Maier, D., Zdonik, S.: The object-oriented database system manifesto. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pp. 40–57 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin Cummings (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E., Yergeau, F.: Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0 (third edition) W3C recommendation 04 (february 2004),
  5. 5.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: Towards a unified view of data. Transactions on Database Systems 1, 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, London, UK (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpin, T.: Modeling collections in UML and ORM. In: EMMSAD (2000),
  8. 8.
    Hartmann, S., Link, S.: English sentence structures and EER modeling. In: The Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 67, pp. 27–35 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys 19(3) (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levene, M., Vincent, M.: Justification for inclusion dependency normal form. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 12(2), 281–291 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, J., Ng, S., Wong, L.: Bioinformatics adventures in database research. In: Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Motwari, R. (eds.) ICDT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2572, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markowitz, V., Makowsky, J.: Identifying extended entity-relationship object structures in relational schemas. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(8), 777–790 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paredaens, J., De Bra, P., Gyssens, M., Van Gucht, D.: The Structure of the Relational Database Model. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S.: Complex objects modeling: An entity-relationship-approach. In: Nested Relations and Complex Objects. LNCS, vol. 361, pp. 272–296. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Zimányi, E.: Spatio-temporal conceptual models: Data structures + space + time. In: ACM-GIS, pp. 26–33 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schek, H., Scholl, M.: The relational model with relation-valued attributes. Inf. Syst. 11(2), 137–147 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ter Hofstede, A., van der Weide, T.: Deriving identity from extensionality. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 8(2), 189–221 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thalheim, B.: Entity-Relationship Modeling: Foundations of Database Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Hartmann
    • 1
  • Sebastian Link
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Science Research Centre, Massey UniversityNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations