Object-Oriented Modelling in Practice: Class Model Perceptions in the ERM Context

  • Steve Hitchman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)


Whilst research has indicated that the practitioner use of entity-relationship modelling is problematic, proponents of object oriented modelling suggest that their paradigm offers both a new approach and also more effective modelling. This paper examines some practitioner perceptions of one object oriented modelling technique in the context of previous work on entity-relationship modelling. The findings show that there are similar practitioner issues arising from common underlying techniques and that object oriented modelling is problematic when used with project clients. However, the suggestion is that object oriented practitioners are not gaining insight from practitioner experience from more than twenty years of entity-relationship modelling practice.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Silverston, L, Inmon, W.H. & Graziano, K (1997) The Data Model Resource Book John WileyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker, R. (1989) Case*Method: Entity Relationship Modelling Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stapleton, J. (1997) Dynamic Systems Development Method Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hitchman, S. (1995) Practitioner perceptions on the use of some semantic concepts in the entity-relationship model. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein, R., C. & Storey, V., C. (1990) Some Findings On The Intuitiveness Of Entity-Relationship Constructs in Lochovsky, F. H.(Editor) (1990) Entity-Relationship Approach To Database Design and Querying Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Inmon, W. H. (1995) From the introduction in Kimball (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kimball, R. (1996) The Data warehouse Toolkit: Practical Techniques For Building Dimensional Data Warehouses John WileyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Permalani, W., Eddy, F. and Lorensen, W. (1991) Object Oriented Modelling and Design Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hitchman, S (1999) Ternary Relationships — to three or not to three, is there a question ? European Journal Of Information Systems Vol. 8 December pp. 224–231Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coad, P. & Yourdon, E. (1991) Object Oriented Analysis Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hitchman, S. (1997) Using DEKAF To Understand Modelling In The Practitioner Domain European Journal of Information Systems, 6(3) pp.181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Overgaard, G. (1992) Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    SELECT, (1995) Object Oriented Analysis & Design for Client-Server Development Version 2.1, published by SELECT Software Tools Limited, England.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hitchman, S (1998) Is Class Modelling A Hidden Agenda For The Domain Expert ?-A Case Study in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of Information Systems Development (ISD98), Bled, Slovenia, 21–23 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G (1998) The Unified Modeling Language: Language Reference Manual. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Law D, 1988 Methods For Comparing Methods, Techniques in Software Development NCC ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    STARTS, 1987 The STARTS Guide 2nd Edition NCC Manchester 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Hitchman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations