Designing Software Components for Database Consistency – An Enterprise Modeling Approach

  • Lars Jakobsson
  • Peter Bellström
Conference paper

The ubiquitous use of databases (DB) in information systems (IS) today is a direct result of complex and enormous amounts of data processing required in modern businesses. The complexity of the data processing requires software to support the organization in being competitive in an increasingly demanding business climate. The software must support the organization in creating business advantages, thus the need for robust, yet flexible software solutions is increasingly important to maintain or gain effectiveness [1].


Modeling Language Unify Modeling Language Information System Software Component Enterprise Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aniorte P (2003) A distributed adaptable software architecture derived from a component model. Computer Standards & Interfaces vol 25 no 3, pp 275-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe B L (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Sur-veys vol 18 no 4, pp 323-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini C, Ceri S, Navathe S B (1992) Conceptual Database Design An Entity-Relationship Approach. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Redwood City, California.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellström P (2005) Using Enterprise Modeling for identification and resolution of homonym conflicts in view integration. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski W G, Zupancic J, Wrycza S (eds) Information Systems Development Advances in Theory, Practice and Education, Springer, pp 265-276.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellström P (2006) View integration in conceptual database design -Problems, approaches and solutions. Licentiate thesis, Karlstad Univer-sity Studies, 2006:5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellström P, Jakobsson L (2006) Towards a generic and integrated En-terprise Modeling approach to designing databases and software compo-nents. In: Nilsson A G, Gustas R, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Wrysza S, Zupancic J (eds) Advances in Information Systems Develop-ment: Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry, Springer, pp. 635-646.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobsson I (1999) The Unified Modelling Lan-guage user guide. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen P (1976) The Entity-Relationship model - Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems vol 1 no 1, pp 9-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Connolly T, Begg C (2005) Database systems A practical approach to de-sign, implementation, and management. Addison Wesley, England.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dey D, Storey V C, Barron T M (1999) Improving database design through the analysis of relationships. ACM Transactions on Database Systems vol 24 no 4, pp 453-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elmasri R, Navathe S B (2004) Fundamentals of database systems. Addison Wesley, Boston.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustas R (1998) Integrated approach for modelling of semantic and pragmatic dependencies of information systems. In: Ling T W, Ram S, Lee M L (eds) Proceedings of ER'98, Springer, pp 121-134.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gustas R, Gustiené P (2004) Towards the enterprise engineering ap-proach for information system modelling across organisational and tech-nical boundaries. In: Camp O, Filipe J, Hammoudi S, Piattini M (eds) Enterprise Information Systems V, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 204-215.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gustas R, Jakobsson L (2004) Enterprise modelling of component ori-ented infor-mation system architectures. In: Fujita H, Gruhn V (eds) Pro-ceedings of SoMeT_W04, IOS Press, pp 88-102.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haerder T, Reuter A (1983) Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. Computing Surveys vol 6 no 4, pp 287-317.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakobsson L (2004) Component based software - Implications on the de-velopment process and modeling techniques. Licentiate thesis, Karlstad University Studies, 2004:7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jakobsson L, Gustas R (2004) Towards a systematic modeling of compo- nent based software architectures. International SSCCII-2004, Amalfi, Italy.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johannesson P (1993) Schema integration, schema translation, and inter-operability in federated information systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer & Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Royal Institute of Technology, No. 93-010-DSV, Edsbruk.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kozlenkov A, Zisman A (2004) Discovering, recording, and handling in-consistencies in software specifications. International Journal of Computer & Information Science vol 5 no 2, pp 89-108.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee M L, Ling T W (2003) A methodology for structural conflict resolu-tion in the integration of Entity-Relationship schemas. Knowledge and Information System vol 5 no 2, pp 225-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin J, Odell J J (1998) Object-oriented methods: A foundation (UML edition). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S, Russo A (2001) Making inconsistency re-spectable in software development. The Journal of Systems and Software vol 58, pp 171-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parent C, Spaccapietra S (1998) Issues and approaches of database inte-gration. Communications of the ACM vol 41 no 5es, pp 166-178.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parsons J (2002) Effects on local versus global schema diagrams on veri-fication and communication in conceptual data modeling. Journal of Management Information Systems vol 19 no 3, pp 155-183.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spaccapietra S, Parent C (1994) View integration: a step forward in solv-ing structural conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering vol 6 no 2, pp 258-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teorey T J, Tang D, Fry J P (1986) A logical design methodology for re-lational databases using the extended Entity-Relationship model. Com-puting Surveys vol 18 no 2, pp 197-222.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teorey T J (1999) Database modeling & design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, USA.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Buuren R, Jonkers H, Lacob M-E, Strating P (2004) Composition of relations in enterprise architecture models. In: Ehrig H, Engels G, Parisi-Presicce F, Rozenberg G (eds) Proceedings of ICGT 2004, Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1994) From E-R to ‘A-R’ - Modelling strategic actor relationships for business process reengineering. In: Loucopoulos P (ed) Proceedings of ER’94, pp 548-565.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zachman J A (1996) Enterprise architecture: The issue of the century. Database Programming and Design Magazine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Jakobsson
    • 1
  • Peter Bellström
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsKarlstad UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations