Advertisement

Abstract

A conceptual data model for an information system specifies the fact structures of interest as well as the constraints and derivation rules that apply to the business domain being modeled. The languages for specifying these models may be graphical or textual, and may be based upon approaches such as Entity Relationship modeling, class diagramming in the Unified Modeling Language, fact orientation (e.g. Object-Role Modeling), Semantic Web modeling (e.g. the Web Ontology Language), or deductive databases (e.g. datalog). Although sharing many aspects in common, these languages also differ in fundamental ways which impact not only how, but which, aspects of a business domain may be specified. This paper provides a logical analysis and critical comparison of how such modeling languages deal with three main structural aspects: the entity/value distinction; existential facts; and entity reference schemes. The analysis has practical implications for modeling within a specific language and for transforming between languages.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Resource Description Framework Object Constraint Language Definite Description Business Domain 
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.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976), http://csc.lsu.edu/news/erd.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connolly, T., Begg, C.: Database Systems, 5th edn. Pearson Education, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duerst, M., Suignard, M.: RFC 3987: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). IETF (January 2005), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
  5. 5.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Embley, D.: Object Database Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, T., Karvounarakis, G., Ives, Z., Tannen, V.: Update Exchange with Mappings and Provenance. Technical Report MS-CIS-07-26, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: A Logical Analysis of Information Systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland (1989), http://www.orm.net/Halpin_PhDthesis.pdf
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: Fact-Oriented Modeling: Past, Present and Future. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 19–38. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling. In: Liu, L., Tamer Ozsu, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling: Principles and Benefits. International Journal of Information Systems Modeling and Design 1(1), 32–54 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T., Curland, M., Stirewalt, K., Viswanath, N., McGill, M., Beck, S.: Mapping ORM to datalog: An overview. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 504–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T., Wijbenga, J.P.: FORML 2. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 50, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISWC 2008 Panel discussion: An OWL 2 Far? (2008), http://videolectures.net/iswc08_panel_schneider_owl/
  16. 16.
    Kolaitis, P.: Schema Mappings, Data Exchange, and Metadata Management. In: PODS 2005, Baltimore, Maryland. ACM, New York (2005), 1-59593-062-0/05/06Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, B.: Existence. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (2002), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003), http://www.omg.org/uml
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group: UML OCL 2.0 Specification (2005), http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-06-06.pdf
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, SBVR (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
  21. 21.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W3C: RDF Primer (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
  23. 23.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Primer (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/
  24. 24.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/
  25. 25.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/
  26. 26.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.LogicBloxAustralia
  2. 2.INTI International UniversityMalaysia

Personalised recommendations