OO and EER Conceptual Schemas: A Comparison of User Comprehension

A database conceptual schema serves as a communication medium between professional analysts/designers and users who wish to comprehend and validate the conceptual schema. The conceptual schema is usually presented in a diagrammatic form that follows a specific semantic data model. The extended entity-relationship (EER) model is one of the most commonly used models, but being “threatened†by the objectoriented (OO) approach, which penetrates into the areas of systems analysis and design, as well as data modeling. The issue of which of the two data models is better for modeling reality and is easier to comprehend is still an open question. Our response to this question was to conduct a controlled experiment in which two groups of users, each trained to use one of the models, were tested for the comprehension of equivalent schema diagrams. Comprehension was measured by the number of correct answers to questions that addressed different constructs of the models. The results of the experiment reveal that there is no significant difference in comprehension of facts dealing with attributes of entities or objects, binary-relationships and two relationships, but those dealing with ternary-relationships are significantly easier to comprehend with the EER model. Comprehension of other, unclassified facts, however, is easier with the OO model. We propose a special symbol for objects representing ternary and higher order relationships in order to overcome the weakness of OO diagrams.

[1]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  A Review and Analysis of the Usability of Data Management Environments , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[2]  Keng Siau,et al.  Conceptual Level Versus Logical Level User-Database Interaction , 1991, ICIS.

[3]  V. M. Markowitz,et al.  Representing processes in the extended entity-relationship model , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering.

[4]  Hirotaka Sakai,et al.  A Method for Entity-Relationship Behavior Modeling , 1983, ER.

[5]  David A. Bradbard,et al.  The Effects of Relational and Entity-Relationship Data Models on Query Performance of End Users , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[6]  Joan Peckham,et al.  Semantic data models , 1988, CSUR.

[7]  B. Lazarević,et al.  Extending the entity-relationship model to capture dynamic behaviour , 1991 .

[8]  Roger King,et al.  Semantic Data Models , 1985, Principles of Database Design.

[9]  Jefry J. Machesky,et al.  Data Analysis and Learning: An Experimental Study of Data Modeling Tools , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[10]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Database schema design: an experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis , 1987, DATB.

[11]  Justus D. Naumann,et al.  The Effectiveness of Data Representation Characteristics on User Validation , 1985, ICIS.

[12]  Shamkant B. Navathe,et al.  ER-R: An Enhanced ER Model with Situation-Action Rules to Capture Application Semantics , 1991, International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

[13]  Dzenan Ridjanovic,et al.  Comparing quality of data representations produced by nonexperts using logical data structure and relational data models , 1986 .

[14]  T. J. Teorey,et al.  A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model , 1986, CSUR.

[15]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Comparing representations with relational and EER models , 1990, Commun. ACM.