Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams

Conceptual modeling is an important task undertaken during the systems development process to build a representation of those features of an application domain that are important to stakeholders. In spite of its importance, however, substantial evidence exists to show that it is not done well. Designers often provide incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent representations of domain features in the conceptual models they prepare. Users often have difficulty understanding the meaning inherent in a conceptual model. In this paper, we investigate the proposition that part of the difficulties that stakeholders experience with conceptual modeling arises when a conceptual modeling grammar or a representation produced using the grammar lacks ontological clarity. Lack of ontological clarity arises when a one-one mapping does not exist between conceptual modeling constructs and real-world constructs. For example, the grammatical construct of an entity is used to represent both things and events in the real world. Specifically, we focus on the grammatical construct of a relationship with attributes, which is often used in entity-relationship modeling. We argue that use of this construct produces ontologically unclear representations of a domain. We also report results from an experiment we undertook where we investigated the impact of using relationships with attributes in conceptual modeling representations on the problem-solving performance of users of these representations. Consistent with our predictions, we found that using relationships with attributes undermined problem-solving performance in unfamiliar domains. Contrary to our predictions, however, their use did not undermine problem-solving performance in familiar domains.

[1]  Michael J. Prietula,et al.  Form and Substance in Physical Database Design: An Empirical Study , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[3]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[4]  Ron Weber,et al.  Are Attributes Entities? A Study of Database Designers' Memory Structures , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[6]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models , 1998, ER.

[8]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Conceptual data modelling in theory and practice , 1995 .

[9]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Comparing data modeling formalisms , 1995, CACM.

[10]  Ronald Maier,et al.  Benefits and Quality of Data Modelling - Results of an Empirical Analysis , 1996, ER.

[11]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  M. Ashcraft Human memory and cognition , 1989 .

[13]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models: An Action Research Programme , 1998, Aust. Comput. J..

[14]  David W. Embley,et al.  Object-oriented systems analysis - a model-driven approach , 1991, Yourdon Press Computing series.

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

[16]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[17]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

[18]  Ramez Elmasri,et al.  Fundamentals of Database Systems , 1989 .

[19]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

[20]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Some Findings on the Intuitivness of Entity-Relationship Constructs , 1989, International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

[21]  S. Hitchman Practitioner perceptions on the use of some semantic concepts in the entity–relationship model , 1995 .