ADBdesign: An Approach to Automated Initial Conceptual Database Design Based on Business Activity Diagrams

  • Drazen Brdjanin
  • Slavko Maric
  • Dejan Gunjic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6295)


This paper presents a new approach to automated initial conceptual database design based on detailed UML business activity diagrams. The most important concepts of detailed business activity diagrams, as a frequently used business process modeling notation, are identified and the XMI represented. Based on those concepts, we define the rules for the automated generation of the class diagram as the target initial conceptual database model. We also give a short description of the used software development environment and implemented generator with some experimental results of application to a real business model.


business activity diagram class diagram database initial conceptual model UML 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Eriksson, H., Penker, M.: Business Modeling with UML. OMG Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodriguez, A., Fernandez-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: CIM to PIM Transformation: A Reality. In: Xu, L., Tjoa, A., Chaudry, S. (eds.) Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems II, vol. 2, pp. 1239–1249. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobson, I.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Proper, H., Halpin, T.: Conceptual Schema Optimisation - Database Optimisation before sliding down the Waterfall. DoCS, University of Queensland (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): FIPSP 183 - Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0). NIST, Gaithersburg (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scheer, A.: Business Process Engineering: Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reising, W., Muchnick, S., Schnupp, P.: A Primer in Petri Net Design. Springer, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, S., Miers, D.: BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide. Future Strategies, Lighthouse Point (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, P.: The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM ToDS 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, J.: Information Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naiburg, E., Maksimchuk, R.: UML for Database Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brdjanin, D., Maric, S.: An Example of Use-Case-driven Conceptual Design of Relational Database. In: EUROCON 2007 - The Int. Conference on Computer as a Tool, pp. 538–545. IEEE Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ko, R., Lee, S., Lee, E.: Business process management (BPM) standards: A survey. Business Process Management Journal 15(5), 744–791 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Wohed, P.: On the Suitability of UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams for Business Process Modeling. In: 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 95–104. Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brdjanin, D., Maric, S.: UML-business profile-based Business Modeling in Iterative-Incremental Software Development. In: EUROCON 2005 - The Int. Conference on Computer as a Tool, pp. 1263–1266. IEEE Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Storey, V.: Understanding Semantic Relationships. VLDB Journal 2(4), 455–488 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group (OMG): MOF2.0/XMI Mapping, v 2.1.1. OMG (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    TOPCASED Project: Toolkit in Open-source for Critical Application & SystEms Development, v 3.2.0,
  21. 21.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, v 2.1.1. OMG (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (OMG): MOF 2.0 Query / View / Transformation Specification, v 1.0. OMG (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hussey, K.: Getting Started with UML2. IBM Corp., New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamimura, M., Inoue, K., Hasegawa, A., Kawabata, R., Kumagai, S., Itoh, K.: Integrated Diagrammatic Representations For Data Design In Collaborative Processes. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science 7(4), 35–49 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garcia Molina, J., Jose Ortin, M., Moros, B., Nicolas, J., Toval, A.: Towards Use Case and Conceptual Models through Business Modeling. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 281–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suarez, E., Delgado, M., Vidal, E.: Transformation of a Process Business Model to Domain Model. In: WCE 2008 - World Congress on Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 165–169. IAENG, London (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Drazen Brdjanin
    • 1
  • Slavko Maric
    • 1
  • Dejan Gunjic
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Banja LukaBanja LukaBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.NITESBanja LukaBosnia and Herzegovina

Personalised recommendations