Advertisement

Determining the Preferred Representation of Temporal Constraints in Conceptual Models

  • C. Maria Keet
  • Sonia Berman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10650)

Abstract

The need for expressing temporal constraints in conceptual models is well-known, but it is unclear which representation is preferred and what would be easier to understand by modellers. We assessed five different modes of representing temporal constraints, being the formal semantics, Description logics notation, a coding-style notation, temporal EER diagrams, and (pseudo-)natural language sentences. The same information was presented to 15 participants in an experimental evaluation. Principally, it showed that (1) there was a clear preference for diagrams and natural language versus a dislike for other representations; (2) diagrams were preferred for simple constraints, but the natural language rendering was preferred for more complex temporal constraints; and (3) a multi-modal modelling tool will be needed for the data analysis stage to be effective.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who participated in the experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: A temporal description logic for reasoning over conceptual schemas and queries. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Ianni, G., Leone, N. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2424, pp. 98–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45757-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artale, A., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S.: Evolving objects in temporal information systems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50(1–2), 5–38 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artale, A., Kontchakov, R., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Temporal description logic for ontology-based data access. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Lippmann, M.: Temporalizing ontology-based data access. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 330–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burden, H., Heldal, R.: Natural language generation from class diagrams. In: Proceedings of MoDeVVa 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Expressive description logics. In: The DL Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, pp. 178–218. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Combi, C., Degani, S., Jensen, C.S.: Capturing temporal constraints in temporal ER models. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 397–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curland, M., Halpin, T.: Model driven development with NORMA. In: Proceedings of HICSS-40, p. 286a. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gianni, D., Bocciarelli, P., D’Ambrogio, A.: Temporal capabilities in support of conceptual process modeling using object-role modeling. In: Proceedings of DEVS Integrative 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregersen, H.: TimeERplus: a temporal EER model supporting schema changes. In: Jackson, M., Nelson, D., Stirk, S. (eds.) BNCOD 2005. LNCS, vol. 3567, pp. 41–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11511854_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gregersen, H., Jensen, C.S.: Temporal entity-relationship models - a survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 11(3), 464–497 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keet, C.M.: Sentence planning for temporal conceptual models and their temporal constraints. Submitted to an International Conference. ACL (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keet, C.M., Artale, A.: A basic characterization of relation migration. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 484–493. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16961-8_70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keet, C.M., Ongoma, E.A.N.: Temporal attributes: their status and subsumption. In: Proceedings of APCCM 2015, vol. 165, pp. 61–70. CRPIT (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khatri, V., Ram, S., Snodgrass, R.T., Terenziani, P.: Capturing telic/atelic temporal data semantics: generalizing conventional conceptual models. Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 26(3), 528–548 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McBrien, P.: Temporal constraints in non-temporal data modelling languages. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 412–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR) - OMG released versions of SBVR, formal/2008-01-02, January 2008. http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0
  19. 19.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Zimányi, E.: Conceptual Modeling for Traditional and Spatio-temporal Applications-the MADS Approach. Springer, Hedidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/3-540-30326-XCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reiter, E., Dale, R.: Building applied natural language generation systems. Nat. Lang. Eng. 3, 57–87 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shunmugam, T.: Adoption of a visual model for temporal database representation. M. IT thesis, Department of CS, University of Cape Town, South Africa (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations