Representing Part-Whole Relations in Conceptual Modelling

A comparison of object-oriented and entity relationship modellers
  • Graeme Shanks
  • Elizabeth Tansley
  • Simon Milton
  • Steve Howard
Conference paper

Abstract

The idea that one thing may be part of another thing seems fundamental to the way humans perceive and understand phenomena. Part-whole (or meronymic) relations have been of interest to philosophers concerned with ontology (eg. Bunge, 1977; Weber, 1997; Chisholm, 1996) and psychologists concerned with human cognition (eg. Winston et al., 1987).

Keywords

Unify Modelling Language Unify Modelling Language Model Model Fragment Historical Accuracy Sound Representation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bunge, M., 1977, Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, Reidel, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chisholm, R. M., 1996, A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay on Ontology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Floyd, C., 1986, A comparative evaluation of system development methods, in: Information System Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice T. W. 011e, H. G. Sol and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, (eds), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 19–54.Google Scholar
  4. Moody, D.L. and Shanks, G., 1998, Improving the quality of entity-relationship models: An action research programme, The Australian Computer Journal, 30, 129–138.Google Scholar
  5. Moody, D. and Shanks, G., 2002, Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models: Experience in Research and Practice, Information Systems Journal.Google Scholar
  6. Opdahl, A. L., Henderson-Sellers, B. and Barbier, F., 2001, Ontological analysis of whole—part relationships in 00-models, Information and Software Technology, 43, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G., 1999, The Unified Modelling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  8. Shanks, G, Tansley, E., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D. and Weber, R., 2002, Representing Part-Whole Relationships in Conceptual Modelling: An Empirical Evaluation, Proc. International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, J. M. and Smith, D. C. P., 1977, Database abstractions: Aggregation, Communications of the ACM, 20: 6, 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Storey, V., 1991, Meronymic relationships, Journal of Database Administration, 2: 3, 22–35.Google Scholar
  11. Teorey, T. J., Yang, D. and Fry, J. P., 1987, A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model, ACM Computing Surveys, 18: 2, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wand, Y., Storey, V., Weber, R., 1999, An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24, 494–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wand, Y. and Weber, R., 1993, On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars, Journal of Information Systems, 3, 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wand, Y. and Weber, R., 2002, Information systems and conceptual modelling: A research agenda, Information Systems Research, 13.Google Scholar
  15. Weber, R., 1997, Ontological Foundations of Information Systems, Coopers and Lybrand Monograph. Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R., and Herrman, D., 1987, A taxonomy of part-whole relations, Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graeme Shanks
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Tansley
    • 2
  • Simon Milton
    • 3
  • Steve Howard
    • 3
  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Central Queensland UniversityQueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations