Integrating the ER approach in an OO environment

  • M. Gogolla
  • R. Herzig
  • S. Conrad
  • G. Denker
  • N. Vlachantonis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)


We translate Entity-Relationship (ER) schemas into the object-oriented specification language TROLL light. This language describes the Universe of Discourse (UoD) as a system of concurrently existing and interacting objects, i.e., an object community. Thereby two essential aspects, structure and behavior, are integrated in one formalism. By doing the translation from ER to TROLL light we preserve the visual advantages of the former and receive a formalism through the latter which can be mapped to an adequate object-oriented database system. Proceeding this way we hope our proposal for transforming ER schemas into TROLL light specifications provides a valuable link between structural and dynamic modeling.


Integrity Constraint Relationship Type Object Community Data Type Specification Semantic Data Model 
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. [ABLV83]
    P. Atzeni, C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and F. Villanelli. INCOD: A System for Conceptual Design of Data and Transactions in the Entity-Relationship Model. In: [Che83], pp. 375–410, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [AH87]
    S. Abiteboul and R. Hull. IFO — A Formal Semantic Database Model. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 12(4):525–565, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Ban88]
    F. Bancilhon. Object-Oriented Database Systems. In Proc. 7th ACM Symp. Principles of Database Systems, pages 152–162, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [BCN92]
    C. Batini, S. Ceri, and S.B. Navathe. Conceptual Database Design — An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin-Cumrnings, Redwood City (CA), 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [CGH92]
    S. Conrad, M. Gogolla, and R. Herzig. TROLL light: A Core Language for Specifying Objects. Informatik-Bericht 92-02, Technische Universität Braunschweig, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [Che76]
    P. Chen. The Entity-Relationship Model — Towards a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 1(1):9–36, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Che80]
    P.P. Chen, editor. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design (1979). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [Che83]
    P.P. Chen, editor. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach to Information Modelling and Analysis (1981). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [dSNF80]
    C.S. dos Santos, E.J. Neuhold, and A.L. Furtado. A Data Type Approach to the Entity-Relationship Approach. In: [Che80], pp. 103–119, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [EGH+92]
    G. Engels, M. Gogolla, U. Hohenstein, K. Hülsmann, P. Löhr-Richter, G. Saake, and H.-D. Ehrich. Conceptual modelling of database applications using an extended ER model. Data & Knowledge Engineering, North-Holland, 9(2):157–204, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [EKTW86]
    J. Eder, G. Kappel, A. M. Tjoa, and R.R. Wagner. BIER: The Behaviour Integrated Entity-Relationship Approach. In: [Spa87], pp. 147–166, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [EWH85]
    R. Elmasri, J. Weeldreyer, and A. Hevner. The Category Concept: An Extension to the Entity-Relationship Model. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1:75–116, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [GCH93]
    M. Gogolla, S. Conrad, and R. Herzig. Sketching Concepts and Computational Model of TROLL light. In A. Miola, editor, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems (DISCO'93), pages 17–32. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 722, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [GH91]
    M. Gogolla and U. Hohenstein. Towards a Semantic View of an Extended Entity-Relationship Model. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 16:369–416, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [HG88]
    U. Hohenstein and M. Gogolla. A Calculus for an Extended Entity-Relationship Model Incorporating Arbitrary Data Operations and Aggregate Functions. In C. Batini, editor, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 129–148, Rome, 1988. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [HGP92]
    M. Halper, J. Geller, and Y. Perl. “Part” Relations for Object-Oriented Databases. In G. Pernul and A. M. Tjoa, editors, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, Karlsruhe (Germany), pages 406–422. Springer, LNCS 645, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [HH91]
    U. Hohenstein and K. Hülsmann. A Language for Specifying Static and Dynamic Integrity Constraints. In T.J. Teorey, editor, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on the ER-approach, pages 389–416, San Mateo, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [HK87]
    R. Hull and R. King. Semantic Database Modelling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Hoh89]
    U. Hohenstein. Automatic Transformation of an Entity-Relationship Query Language into SQL. In F. Lochovski, editor, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 309–327, Toronto, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [JSHS91]
    R. Jungclaus, G. Saake, T. Hartmann, and C. Sernadas. Object-Oriented Specification of Information Systems: The TROLL Language. Informatik-Bericht 91-04, TU Braunschweig, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [KC86]
    S.N. Khoshafian and G.P. Copeland. Object Identity. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 21(11):406–416, 1986. Proc. OOPSLA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [KS91a]
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl. Object/Behavior Diagrams. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, Kobe (Japan), pages 530–539, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [KS91b]
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl. Using an Object-Oriented Diagram Technique for the Design of Information Systems. In H.G. Sol and K.M. Van Hee, editors, Dynamic Modelling of Information Systems, pages 121–164. Elsevier (North-Holland), 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [LLOW91]
    C. Lamb, G. Landis, J. Orenstein, and D. Weinreib. The ObjectStore Database System. Communications of the ACM, 34(10):50–63, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [MMR86]
    J.A. Makowski, V.M. Makowski, and N. Rotics. Entity-Relationship Consistency for Relational Schemes. In G. Ausiello and P. Atzeni, editors, Proc. Int. Conf. Database Theory (ICDT'86), pages 306–322. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 243, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. [NCB91]
    J. Nachouki, M.P. Chastang, and H. Briand. From entity-relationship diagram to an object-oriented database. In T.J. Teorey, editor, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, San Mateo (California), pages 459–482, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. [PS92]
    C. Parent and S. Spaccapietra. ECR+: An Object-Based Entity-Relationship Approach. In P. Loucopoulos and R. Zicari, editors, Concepual Modeling, Databases, and CASE: An Integrated View of Information Systems Development, pages 69–86. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [RS91]
    E. Rose and A. Segev. TOODM-A Temporal Object-Oriented Data Model with Temporal Constraints. In T.J. Teorey, editor, Proc. Entity-Relationship Approach (ER'91), pages 205–230, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. [Spa87]
    S. Spaccapietra, editor. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach: Ten Years of Experience in Information Modeling (1986). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. [SSE87]
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and H.-D. Ehrich. Object-Oriented Specification of Databases: An Algebraic Approach. In P.M. Stoecker and W. Kent, editors, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases VLDB'87, pages 107–116. VLDB Endowment Press, Saratoga (CA), 1987.Google Scholar
  31. [Tar92]
    Z. Tari. On the Design of Object-Oriented Databases. In G. Pernul and A. M. Tjoa, editors, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, Karlsruhe (Germany), pages 389–405. Springer, LNCS 645, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. [Tau91]
    B. Tauzovich. Towards Temporal Extensions to the Entity-Relationship Model. In T.J. Teorey, editor, Proc. Entity-Relationship Approach (ER'91), pages 163–180, 1991.Google Scholar
  33. [Teo90]
    T.J. Teorey. Database Modeling and Design — The Entity-Relationship Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (CA), 1990.Google Scholar
  34. [Tha90]
    B. Thalheim. Extending the Entity-Relationship Model for a High-Level, Theory-Based Database Design. In: Proc. 1st Int. East-West Database Workshop, Next Generation Information System Technology, J.W. Schmidt, A.A. Stagny (Eds.), Springer, Berlin, LNCS 504, pp. 161–184, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. [TYF86]
    T.J. Teorey, D. Yang, and J.P. Fry. A Logical Design Methodology for Relational Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(2):197–222, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [VHG+93]
    N. Viachantonis, R. Herzig, M. Gogolla, G. Denker, S. Conrad, and H.-D. Ehrich. Towards Reliable Information Systems: The KORSO Approach. In C. Rolland, F. Bodart, and C. Cauvet, editors, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'93), pages 463–482. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 685, 1993.Google Scholar
  37. [WT91]
    G. Wei and T.J. Teorey. The ORAC Model: A Unified View of Data Abstractions. In T.J. Teorey, editor, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, San Mateo (California), pages 31–58, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gogolla
    • 1
  • R. Herzig
    • 1
  • S. Conrad
    • 1
  • G. Denker
    • 1
  • N. Vlachantonis
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatik, Abt. DatenbankenTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations