On a composite formalism and approach to presenting the knowledge content of a relational database

  • M. M. Fonkam
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 991)


In this paper we present a graphical technique that combines in one formalism both the structural and semantic integrity constraints of a relational database (RDB) to produce a conceptual model, and then shows in the same formalism the connection between the conceptual model and the underlying logical model of the database, as represented within the database system (DBS). The broad aim is to offer to the increasing numbers of inexperienced users of these relational database systems a tool which they can use to quickly examine the knowledge content of the database and understand how these database semantics are actually modelled within the system, thus facilitating the user's task of framing queries to the system using the database query language. We borrow ideas from both the extended entity relationship (EER) and the ENIAM models in creating a graphical conceptual model for a RDB that combines both its structural and semantic integrity constraints and then introduce new concepts in the diagram that show how various relationships in the model are realised internally within the database logical model.


conceptual model presentation model database semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BRO84]
    M.L. Brodie et al, “On Conceptual Modelling: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases and Programming Languages”, Springer-Verlag, — 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [CHE76]
    The Entity Relationship Model — Towards a Unified View of Data”, ACM TODS Vol. 1, NO. 1, pp 9–36,-March, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. [CRE89]
    Peter Creasy, “ENIAM: A More Complete Conceptual Schema Language”, Procs. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases (VLDB)-Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [DAT83]
    C.J. Date, “An Introduction to Database Systems Volume II”, Adison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.-August, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [DAV87]
    K.A. Davis & A.R. Arora, “Coverting a Relational DB Model into an Entity-Relationship Model”,-Procs. 6th Int. Conf. on Entity Relationship Analysis-1987.Google Scholar
  6. [ELM85]
    R. Elmasri et al, “The category Concept: An Extension to the Entity-Relationship Model”, in Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 1, NO. 1, June, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [FON92a]
    M.M. Fonkam & W.A. Gray, “An Approach to Eliciting the Semantics of Relational Databases”, in Procs. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Advance Info. Systems Eng. (CAiSE),-1992.Google Scholar
  8. [FON92b]
    M.M. Fonkam & W.A. Gray, “Using Integrity Constraints for Query Modification and Intensional Answer Generation in a Multidatabase System”,-Procs. of the 10th British National Conference on Databases-Aberdeen,-1992.Google Scholar
  9. [FON93]
    M.M. Fonkam, “Knowledge Location in Relational Multidatabases”, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Wales, College of Cardiff, April, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [HAB88]
    Henri Habias, “Le Modéle Relationnel Binaire, Mathode I.A.”, Eyrolles-Paris, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [IMI87]
    L. Imiellinski, “Intelligent Query Answering in Rule Based Systems”, Journal of Logic Programming, 4(3): 229–258-Sept., 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [JOH89]
    P. Johannesson & K. Kaiman, “A Method for Translating Relational Schemas into Conceptual Schemas”, 8th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach,-1989.Google Scholar
  13. [KEN79]
    W. Kent, “Limitations of Record-Based Information Models”, ACM TODs,-1979.Google Scholar
  14. [MOT89]
    A. Mitro, “Using Integrity Constraints to Provide Intensional Answers to Relational Queries”, Procs. of the 15th Int. Conf. on VLDBs, Amsterdam,-1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Fonkam
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do MaranhãoSão Luis, MABrasil

Personalised recommendations