Conceptual modelling based on behavioral decomposition

  • Juhani Iivari
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)


The paper suggests an approach for conceptual modelling in which the phenomenon to be modelled is viewed as a behavioral unit and is recursively decomposed into smaller parts. The process is continued until all behavioral units are simple event types. Related entity types and association types with their attributes are also identified. The approach is illustrated using the example of the organization of a conference. The resultant hierarchical model can be used to structure the complexity of conceptual models, and provides an alternative to conceptual modelling based on user views. The top-down decomposition allows possible points of disagreement about the model to be identified early in the modelling process.


Conceptual modelling behavioral modelling stepwise refinement view view integration 


  1. Batini, C., Lenzeri, M. and Navathe, S.B. (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 4, 323–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biller, H. and Neuhold, E.J. (1978) Semantics of data bases: the semantics of data models, Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, 11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodie, M.L. and Silva, E. (1982) Active and passive component modelling: ACM/PCM, Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Venijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.), Information Systems design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 41–91Google Scholar
  4. Bubenko, J.A. Jr. (1980) Information modeling in the context of system development, Lavington, S. (ed.), Information Processing 80, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 395–411Google Scholar
  5. Chakravarthy, S. and Mishra, D. (1994) Snoop: An expressive event specification language for active databases, Data & knowledge Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, P.P. (1976) The entity-relationship model–toward a unified view of data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coad, P. and Yourdon, E. (1991) Object-Oriented Analysis, 2nd edition, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. De Antonellis, V. and Di Leva, A. (1985) DATAID-1: A database design methodology, Information systems, Vol. 10, No. 2, 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman, P. and Miller, D. (1986) Entity model clustering: Structuring a data model by abstraction, The Computer Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, 348–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finkelstein, A.C., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J. and Nuseibeh, B. (1994) Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 8, 569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gustafsson, M.R., Karisson, T. and Bubenko, J.A. Jr. (1982) A declarative approach to conceptual information modeling, Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.), Information Systems design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, Amstredanm, 93–142Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, W. and Ossher, H. (1993) Subject-oriented programming (A critique of pure objects), OOPSLA’93, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 28, No. 10, 411–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iivari, J. (1989) Levels abstraction as a conceptual framework for an information system, Falkenberg, E.D. and Lindgreen, P. (eds.), Information Systems Concepts: An inn-depth analysis, North-Holland, 323–352Google Scholar
  15. King, R. and McLeod, D. (1982) The event database specification model, Scheuermann, P. (ed.), Improving Database Usability and Responsiveness, Academic Press, New York, 299–322Google Scholar
  16. Kung, C.H. and Sölvberg, A. (1986) Activity modeling and behavior modeling, Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the practice, Elsevier (North-Holland), Amsterdam, 145–171Google Scholar
  17. Martin, J. (1990) Information Engineering: Planning and analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Nijssen, G.M., van Assche, F.J. and Snijers, J.J. (1979) End-user tools for the most abstract information systems rerquirement definition, Schneider, H.-J. (ed.), Formal Models and Practical Tools for Information Systems Design, North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) (1982) Information Systems design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Olle, T.W., Hagelstein, J., Macdonald, I.G., Rolland, C., Sol, H.K., Van Assche, F.J.M. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (1988) Informations Systems Methodologies, A framework for understanding, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  21. OOPSLA’91 (1991), Used to compare 00 methods in OOPSLA’91 ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  22. Opdahl, A.L. and Sindre, G. (1995) Facet modelling: A paradigm for flexible and integrated conceptual modelling, Iivari, J., Lyytinen, K. and Rossi, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE’95), Springer Verlag, Berlin, 54–67Google Scholar
  23. Rolland, R. and Richard, C. (1982) The REMORA methodology for information systems design and management, Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.), Information Systems design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 369–426Google Scholar
  24. Rumbaugh J., Blaha, J., Premerlani, W. Eddy, F. and Lorensen W. (1991) Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Rumbaugh, J. (1992) An object or not an object?, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Vol. 5, No. 3, 20–25Google Scholar
  26. Schrefl, M. (1991) Behavior modeling by stepwise refining behavior diagrams, Kangassalo, H. (ed.), Entity-Relationship Approach: The Core of Conceptual Modelling, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 119–134Google Scholar
  27. Solvberg, A. and Kung, C.H. (1986) On structural and behavioral modelling of reality, Steel, T.B. and Meersman, R. (eds.), Database Semantics (DS-1), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 205–221Google Scholar
  28. Teorey, T.J., Wei, G., Bolton, D.L. ja Koenig, J.A. (1989) ER model clustering as an aid for user communication and documentation in database design, Commnications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 8, 975–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (1990) Toward a theory of the deep structure of information systems, DeGross, J.I., Alavi, M. and Oppeland, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen, 61–71Google Scholar
  30. Yourdon, E. (1989) Modern Structured Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juhani Iivari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations