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. Fact-based modeling approaches provide rich graphical and textual languages for specifying conceptual data models, using attribute-free fact structures that enable models to be verbalized and populated in natural sentences that are easily understood by the domain experts best qualified to validate the models. Form-based modeling approaches offer a natural way for domain users to agree upon suitable user interfaces for interacting with the information system. This paper proposes a synthesis of the two approaches, in which prototype forms are used to seed the conceptual data model, which is then used to generate the final user interface. Semantic and practical aspects of form design are discussed, and screen transition diagrams are employed to help visualize and validate the underlying dynamic processes.


Unify Modeling Language Object Constraint Language Fact Type Derivation Rule Shopping Cart 
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.
    Balsters, H., Halpin, T.: Formal Semantics of Dynamic Rules in ORM. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5333, pp. 699–708. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bird, L., Goodchild, A., Halpin, T.: Object Role Modelling and XML-Schema. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 309–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell, L., Halpin, T.: Automated Support for Conceptual to External Mapping. In: Brinkkemper, S., Harmsen, F. (eds.) Proc. Fourth Workshop on the Next Generation of CASE Tools, Paris, pp. 35–51 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell, L., Halpin, T., Proper, H.: Conceptual Schemas with Abstractions: making flat conceptual schemas more comprehensible. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20(1), 39–85 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceri, S., Fraternali, P., Bongio, A.: Web Modeling Language (WebML): A modeling lan-guage for designing Web sites. In: Proc. 9th International World Wide Web Conference, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conallen, J.: Modeling Web Application Architectures with UML. CACM 42(10), 63–70 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curland, M., Halpin, T.: The NORMA Software Tool for ORM 2. In: Soffer, P., Proper, E. (eds.) CAiSE Forum 2010. LNBIP, vol. 72, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draheim, D., Weber, G.: Form-Oriented Analysis: A New Methodology to Model Form-Based Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: A Logical Analysis of Information Systems: static aspects of the data-oriented perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland (1989),
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: Fact-Oriented Modeling: Past, Present and Future. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 19–38. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling. In: Liu, L., Tamer Ozsu, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling: Principles and Benefits. International Journal of Infor-mation Systems Modeling and Design 1(1), 32–54 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T.: Fact-Orientation and Conceptual Logic. In: Proc. 15th International EDOC Conference, pp. 14–19. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halpin, T., Curland, M.: Automated Verbalization for ORM 2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1181–1190. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 504–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO 9241-110:2006 Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 110: Dialogue principles. ISO (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003),
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: UML OCL 2.0 Specification (2006),
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, SBVR (2008),
  23. 23.
    Paterno, F.: Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications, 1st edn. Springer, London (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paterno, F., Santoro, C., Spano, L.D.: MARIA: A universal, declarative, multiple abstraction-level language for service-oriented applications in ubiquitous environments. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16(4), Article 19, 30 pages (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaer, O., Jacob, R.J.K.: A specification paradigm for the design and implementation of tangible user interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16(4), Article 20 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinheiro da Silva, P., Paton, N.W.: UMLi: The Unified Modeling Language for Interactive Applications. In: Evans, A., Caskurlu, B., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pinheiro da Silva, P.: User Interface Declarative Models and Development Environments: A Survey. In: Palanque, P., Paternó, F. (eds.) DSV-IS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1946, pp. 207–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Griethuysen, J. (ed.): Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and In-formation Base. ISO TC97/SC5/WG3. Eindhoven (1982)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vilain, P., Schwabe, D.: Improving the Web Application Design Process with UIDs. In: 2nd International Workshop on Web Oriented Software Technology, Malaga, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vilain, P., Schwabe, D., Sieckenius de Souza, C.: A Diagrammatic Tool for Representing User Interaction in UML. In: Evans, A., Caskurlu, B., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 133–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber. G.: Technology-Independent Modeling of Service Interaction. In: van Sinderen, M., Almeida, J.P.A., Pires, L.P., Steen, M. (eds.): Workshops Proceedings of the 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOCW 2008, Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weber. G: Defining the Paperless Workplace with the Paper Metaphor - Not a Contradiction in Terms. In: Butler-Henderson, K., Sahama, T. (eds.) Australasian Workshop on Health Informatics and Knowledge Management (HIKM 2011), Perth, Australia (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weber. G.: Semantics of Form-Oriented Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. urn:nbn:de:kobv:188-2003000724, Freie Universität Berlin (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
  • Gerald Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.LogicBloxAustralia and INTI International UniversityMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations