From entity-relationship models to role-attribute models

  • Amândio Vaz Velho
  • Rogério CarapuÇa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)


This paper is a short presentation of the SOM (Semantic Object Model) approach. SOM was created to fulfill two main objectives. The first objective is the revision of the traditional data modeling techniques in order to integrate them within an object oriented framework, without sacrificing the main object-oriented principles, namely encapsulation, extendibility and reusability. The paper advocates that the way data modeling concepts have been combined with object-oriented concepts does not reach that goal. The second objective is the improvement of data modeling techniques in order to make them able to model roles. Roles are an important real world aspect we think has not been suitably dealt with. This paper describes attributes and phases, the two main concepts of SOM. Attribute is the single concept used to model all static relationships and phases are thought to model roles. The paper also outlines the textual language (T-SOM) and the graphical language (G-SOM) used in SOM to describe conceptual schemes.


OO Conceptual Modeling OO Analysis and Design Attributes Roles SOM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Albano, L. Cardelli, and R. Orsini, Galileo: A Strongly-Typed, Interactive Conceptual Language, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 10, No 2, June 1985, pp. 230–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Booch, Object Oriented Design with Applications, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. G. Cattel, Object Data Management: Object-Oriented and Extended Relational Database Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Chambers, Predicate Classes, Proceedings of ECCOP'93 — 7th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, O. N. Nierstrasz (ed), Lectures Notes in Computer Science No 707, Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 268–296.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Chen, The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward an Unified View od Data, ACM TODS, 1:1, 1976, pp. 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Codd, Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol. 4, No 4, December, pp. 397–434.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Engels et al., Conceptual Modelling of Databases Applications Using an Extended ER Model, Data & knowledge Engineering 9 (1992/93), pp. 157–204.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. H. Fishman et al., Overview of the Iris DBMS, in: W. Kim, and F. H. Lochovsky (eds.), Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications, Addisom-Wesley, 1989, pp. 219–250.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Goldberg and D. Robson, Smaltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation, Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hammer and D. McLeod, Database Description with SDM: A Semantic Database Model, ACM Trans. Database Systems, 6(3), September, 1981, pp. 351–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Hull, and R. King, Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 19, No 3, September 1987, pp. 201–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Standard Organization, Concepts and Terminology for Conceptual Scheme and Information Base, ISO TR #9007, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Kent, Limitations of Record-based Information Models, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 4, No 1, March 1979, pp. 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. King, My Cat is Object-Oriented, in: W. Kim, and F. H. Lochovsky (eds.): Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications, Addisom-Wesley, 1989, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Martin and J. Odell, Object Oriented Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. R. McFadden, Conceptual Design of Object-Oriented Databases, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming: Focus on ODBMS, SIGS, 4(4), July/August, 1991, pp. 23–26.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Meyer, Reusability: The Case for Object-Oriented Design, IEEE Software, Vol. 4, No 2, 1987, pp. 50–64.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Meyer, Object-oriented Software Construction, Prentice-Hall Internacional, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Meyer, Eiffel The Language, Prentice Hall Object-Oriented Series, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. E. Monarchi and G. I. Puhr, A Research Typology for Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, Comm. of Acm, Vol 35, No 9, September 1992, pp. 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.-M. Nerson, Applying Object-Oriented Analysis and Desing, Comm. of ACM, Vol 35, No 9, September 92, pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ontologic, ONTOS Reference Manual, ONTOS Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Peckham, and F. Maryanski, Semantic Data Models, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 20, No 3, September 1988, pp. 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Pernici, Objects with Roles, in: F. H. Lochovsky, R. B. Allen, Proceeding of the Conference on Office Information Systems, SIGOIS Bulletin, Vol. 11, Issues 2, 3, ACM Press, 1990, pp. 205–215.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. Reenskaug et al., OORASS: seamless support for the creation and maintenance of object oriented systems, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 5 (6), October, 1992, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Rumbaugh, Relations as Semantic Constructs in an Object-Oriented Language, in: Proceedings of the Conference On Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications-87, SIGPLAN NOTICES, Vol. 22, No 12, December 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Permerlani, F. Eddy and W. Lorensen, Object-Oriented Modelling and Design, Prentice-Hall 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Sernadas and H.-D. Ehrich, What is an Object After All, in: R. A. Meersman, W. Kent and S. Khosla (eds.), Object Oriented Dtabases: Analysis, Design and Construction (DS-4), (Proc. IFIP TC2/WG2.6 Working Conference, Windermere, UK (1990), North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Shlaer and S. J. Mellor, Object Oriented System Analysis: Modeling the World in Data, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1988.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. A. Smith and D. C. P. Smith, Database Abstractions: Aggregation and Generalization, ACM Trans. Database Systems, 2(2), March, 1977, pp. 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. A. Stein, H. Lieberman, and D. Ungar, A Shared View of Sharing: The Treaty of Orlando, in: W. Kim and F. H. Lochovsky (eds.), Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications, Addisom-Wesley, 1989, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    L. A. Stein & S. B. Zdonik, Clovers: The Dynamic Behavior of Types and Instances, Brown University, Dept. of Computert Science, Technical Report No CS-89-42, November 1, 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Stroustrup, The C++ Programming Language, 20 Edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. T. Teorey, D. Yang, and J. P. Fry, A Logical Design Methodology for Relacional Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No 2, June 1986, pp. 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Wegner, Concepts and Paradigms of Object-Oriented Programming, ACM SIGPLAN, OOPS Messenger, Vol. 1, No 1, August 1990.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. J. Wirfs-Brock and R. E. Johnson, Surveying Current Research in Object-Oriented Design, in: Com. of ACM, Vol 33, No 9, September 90, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. V. Velho, SOM: A Semantic Object Model — Motivations, Concepts and Languages, (in Portuguese) INESC Thecnical Report, 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    E. Yourdon, Modern Structured Analysis, Yourdon Press, Cliffs, N.J., 1989.EnglewoodGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amândio Vaz Velho
    • 1
  • Rogério CarapuÇa
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC/ISTLisboa, CodexPortugal

Personalised recommendations