Abstract
It is a challenging task to develop a complete and correct Entity Relationship Model (ERM) from the requirements. Quality of artifacts in the later stages of software development (e.g. logical database design, physical database design, and the final product) dependents on the conceptual models. Domain Knowledge (DK) plays a key role while extracting the artifacts from requirements. It is agreed upon that most errors in the early stages of software development are due to the lack of adequate DK. In this paper, we are proposing an automated assessment approach, which focuses on some major issues of ERM such as completeness and correctness. The automatically extracted ERM is used as a reference for the assessment of a manually developed model from the same set of requirements. We trained the Skip-gram model of word2vec for extracting the DK, which is used for assisting in errors detection and ERM’s labels matching. As a case study, we considered models from the business domain. Inputs of this automated technique are reference model, DK, and the model to be evaluated. The output is a list of errors (indicating the sources) and suggestions. The results show the proposed approach is having a noticeable improvement over the existing approaches.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Omar, N., Hanna, J.R.P., McKevitt, P.: Heuristic-based entity-relationship modelling through natural language processing. In: Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (AICS), pp. 302–313. Artificial Intelligence Association of Ireland (2004)
Meziane, F., Vadera, S.: Obtaining ER Diagrams Semi-Automatically From Natural Language Specifications (2004)
Btoush, E.S., Hammad, M.M.: Generating ER diagrams from requirement specifications based on natural language processing. Int. J. Database Theory Appl. 8(2), 61–70 (2015)
Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 243–276 (2005)
Siau, K., Tan, X.: Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 343–365 (2005)
Van Vliet, H., Van Vliet, H., Van Vliet, J.C.: Software Engineering: Principles and Practice, vol. 3. Wiley, New York (1993)
Stecklein, J.M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., Haskins, B., Lovell, R., Moroney, G.: Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle (2004)
Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics, vol. 197. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prentice-hall (1981)
Stecklein, J.M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., Haskins, B., Lovell, R., Moroney, G.: Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle (2004)
McGibbon, T.: Return on investment from software process improvement. DoD Softw. Tech. News 5(4) (2002)
Pavlina, S.: Zero-defect software development. Dexterity Software (2003). www.dexterity.com
Rothman, J.: What does it cost to fix a defect?. Column Arch. Sticky Minds. Com (2002). http://www.stickyminds.com
Roman, G.C.: A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. Computer 4, 14–23 (1985)
Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework. Inf. Syst. 28(6), 619–650 (2003)
Moody, D.L.: Measuring the quality of data models: an empirical evaluation of the use of quality metrics in practice. In: ECIS 2003 Proceedings, p. 78 (2003)
Von Halle, B.: Data: asset or liability. Database Program. Des. 4(7), 13–15 (1991)
Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach, vol. 116. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA (1992)
Levitin, A., Redman, T.: Quality dimensions of a conceptual view. Inf. Process. Manage. 31(1), 81–88 (1995)
Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In: Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, pp. 89–102. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)
Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 201–228 (2012)
Hussain, T.: Revisiting quality metrics for conceptual models. In: TENCON 2014–2014 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1–6 (2014)
Javed, M., Lin, Y.: Iterative process for generating ER diagram from unrestricted requirements. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 192–204 (2018). ISBN: 978-989-758-300-1
Krogstie, J.: Quality of Conceptual Data Models (2013)
Kesh, S.: Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 37(12), 681–689 (1995)
Gosain, A., Nagpal, S., Sabharwal, S.: Quality metrics for conceptual models for data warehouse focusing on dimension hierarchies. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 36(4), 1–5 (2011)
Thi, T.T.P., Helfert, M.: A Review of Quality Frameworks in Information Systems (2017). arXiv:1706.03030
Thomas, P., Smith, N., Waugh, K.: Automatically assessing diagrams. In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on e-Learning (2009)
Batmaz, F., Hinde, C.J.: A Diagram Drawing Tool for Semi–Automatic Assessment of Conceptual Database Diagrams (2006)
Hussain, T., Awais, M.M., Shamail, S.: October. A fuzzy based approach to measure completeness of an entity-relationship model. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 410–422. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)
Lino, A.D.P., Rocha, A.: June. Automatic evaluation of ERD in e-learning environments. In: 13th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE (2018)
Choppella, V., Sengupta, A., Robertson, E.L., Johnson, S.D.: Constructing and Validating Entity-Relationship Data Models in the PVS Specification Language: A Case Study Using a Text-Book Example (2006)
Kazi, Z., Radulović, B., Berković, I., Kazi, L.: Ontology-based reasoning for entity-relationship data model semantic evaluation. Tehnički vjesnik 24(Supplement)(1), 39–47 (2017)
Schenk, K.D., Vitalari, N.P., Davis, K.S.: Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: what do we know and what do we do? J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 9–50 (1998)
Wullink, M.: Data Model Maintainability A Comparative Study of Maintainability Metrics Improving (2010)
Moody, D.L.: Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 211–225 (1998)
Vachharajani, V., Pareek, J.: A proposed architecture for automated assessment of use case diagrams. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 108(4) (2014)
Jayal, A., Shepperd, M.: The problem of labels in E-assessment of diagrams. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. (JERIC) 8(4), 12 (2009)
Ruder, S., Ghaffari, P., Breslin, J.G.: Data Selection Strategies for Multi-domain Sentiment Analysis (2017). arXiv:1702.02426
Naili, M., Chaibi, A.H., Ghezala, H.H.B.: Comparative study of word embedding methods in topic segmentation. Procedia Comput. Sci. 112, 340–349 (2017)
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. Cornell University Library (2013). arXiv:1301.3781
Echeverría, J., Pérez, F., Pastor, Ó., Cetina, C.: Assessing the performance of automated model extraction rules. In: Advances in Information Systems Development, pp. 33–49. Springer, Cham (2018)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Javed, M., Lin, Y. (2020). Automated Assessment of ER Model Using the Domain Knowledge. In: Lee, R. (eds) Computer and Information Science. ICIS 2019. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 849. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25213-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25213-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25212-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25213-7
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)