Metamodel-based Comparison of Data Models

  • Erki Eessaar
Conference paper


Data Model Unify Modeling Language Object Constraint Language Abstract Syntax Unify Modeling Language Class Diagram 
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]
    C.J. Date, An Introduction to Database Systems, 8th ed., Boston: Pearson/Addison Wesley, (2003).MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Stonebraker, L.A. Rowe, B. Lindsay, J. Gray, M. Carey, M. Brodie, P. Bernstein, and D. Beech “Third-generation database system manifesto,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 13, no. 1-3, pp. 41-54, Oct. (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Seshadri, “Enhanced abstract data types in object-relational databases,” The VLDB Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, (1998), pp. 130-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    C.J. Date, and H. Darwen, Foundation for Future Database Systems: The Third Manifesto, 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, (2000).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C.J. Date and H. Darwen, Databases, Types and the Relational Model, 3rd edn, Addison Wesley, (2006). Chapter 4 – The Third Manifesto. Retrieved August 13, (2006), from$∼ $hugh/TTM/CHAP04.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Melton, ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003 (E) Information technology — Database languages — SQL — Part 2: Foundation (SQL/Foundation). August, (2003). Retrieved December 26, (2004), from Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Calero, F. Ruiz, A.L Baroni, F.B. Abreu F, and M. Piattini, “An Ontological Approach to Describe the SQL:2003 Object-Relational Features,” Journal of Computer Standards & Interfaces. vol. 28, issue 6. pp. 695-713, (2005).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E.F. Codd, C.J. Date, “Interactive support for non-programmers: The relational and network approaches,” In: Proceedings of the 1975 ACM SIGFIDET (now SIGMOD) workshop on Data description, access and control, (1975), pp. 11-41.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. Eessaar, “Using Relational Databases in the Engineering Repository Systems,” In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Paphos, Cyprus, May 23 -27, (2006), Databases and Information Systems Integration, pp. 30 – 37.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Seidewitz, “What models mean,” IEEE Software, vol. 20, issue 5, pp. 26-31, Sept.-Oct. (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    DMTF Common Information Model (CIM) Standards. CIM Schema Ver. 2.13. Database specification. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Greenfield, K. Short, S. Cook, and S. Kent, Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. USA: John Wiley & Sons, (2004).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E.F. Codd, “Data models in database management,” SIGART Bull., 74, pp. 112-114, Jan. (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Chaudhuri, and G. Weikum, “Rethinking Database System Architecture: Towards a Self-tuning RISC-style Database System,” In: Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2000, pp. 1-10.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    L.M Braz, “Visual syntax diagrams for programming language statements,” In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual international Conference on Systems Documentation. New York: ACM Press, 1990, pp. 23-27.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification formal/03-03-01. March (2003). Version 1.5.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Mühlen, “Evaluation of Workflow Management Systems Using Meta Models,” In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’99), 1999, vol. Track5, pp. 1-11.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    I. Davies, P. Green, S. Milton, and M. Rosemann, “Using Meta Models for the Comparison of Ontologies,” In: Proceedings Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design Workshop - EMMSAD’03, Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria, (2003).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Richters, and M. Gogolla, “A Metamodel for OCL,” In: Lecture Notes In Computer Science, issue 1723, Springer, 1999, pp. 156-171.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    P. Habela, M. Roantree, and K. Subieta, “Flattening the Metamodel for Object Databases,” In: Proceedings of the 6th East European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems, Bratislava, Slovakia, Sept. 8-11, (2002). LNCS 2435, Springer, 2002, pp. 263-276.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    K. Siau, and M. Rossi, “Evaluation of Information Modeling Methods – A Review,” In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 5, 1998, p. 314.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Rossi, and S. Brinkkemper, “Complexity Metrics for Systems Development Methods and Techniques,” Information Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, 1996, pp. 209-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    A.L. Opdahl and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 43 – 67, Sept. (2002).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    E.F. Codd, “A relational model of large shared data banks,” Comm. ACM, vol. 13, no. 6, 1970, pp. 377-387.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    C. Larman, Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process, 2nd edn, Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice Hall, (2002).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    C. Türker, and M. Gertz, “Semantic integrity support in SQL:1999 and commercial (object-) relational database management systems,” The VLDB Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 241–269, (2001).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erki Eessaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsTallinn University of TechnologyESTONIA

Personalised recommendations