The pragmatic quality of Resources-Events-Agents diagrams: An experimental evaluation

Information Systems Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 63-89

  Poels, Geert ^a   Maes, Ann ^a   Gailly, Frederik ^a   Paemeleire, Roland ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Conceptual modelling; Enterprise information systems; Modelling patterns; Schema quality; User comprehension

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL MODELLING; ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MODELLING PATTERNS; SCHEMA QUALITY; USER COMPREHENSION;

EXPERIMENTS; INDUSTRY; INFORMATION THEORY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING; SEMANTICS;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 78650163035     PISSN: 13501917     EISSN: 13652575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00253.x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson, J.R. (1996) The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
2. Antony, S. & Mellarkod, V. (2004) A methodology for using data-modeling patterns. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design. St. John's, NF, Canada.
3. Batra, D. (2005) Conceptual data modeling patterns: representation and validation. Journal of Database Management, 16, 84-106.
4. Batra, D. & Wang, T.W. (2004) A research agenda for evaluating and improving data modeling patterns. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design. St. John's, NF, Canada.
5. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M. & Weber, R. (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 12, 384-405.
6. Burton-Jones, A. & Weber, R. (2003) Properties do not have properties: investigating a questionable conceptual modeling practice. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design. Miami, FL, USA.
7. Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V. & Ahluwalia, P. (2005) A semiotic metrics suite for assessing quality of ontologies. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 84-102.
8. Chen, P. (1976) The Entity-Relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1, 9-36.
9. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
10. David, J.D., Dunn, C.L. & McCarthy, W.E. (1999) Enterprise resource planning systems research: the necessity of explicating and examining patterns in symbolic form. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Enterprise Management, Resource Planning Systems: Methods, Tools and Architecture. Venice, Italy.
11. Dunn, C.L. & Gerard, G.J. (2001) Auditor efficiency and effectiveness with diagrammatic and linguistic conceptual model representations. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2, 223-248.
12. Dunn, C.L. & Grabski, S.V. (2000) Perceived semantic expressiveness of accounting systems and task accuracy effects. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 1, 79-87.
13. Dunn, C.L. & Grabski, S.V. (2001) An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decision Sciences, 32, 55-94.
14. Dunn, C.L. & McCarthy, W.E. (1997) The REA accounting model: intellectual heritage and prospects for progress. Journal of Information Systems, 11, 31-51.
15. Dunn, C.L., Cherrington, J.O. & Hollander, A.S. (2005) Enterprise Information Systems. A Pattern-Based Approach, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
16. Fowler, M. (1997) Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models. Addison-Wesley, Workingham, UK.
17. Gemino, A. & Wand, Y. (2003) Foundations for empirical comparisons of conceptual modeling techniques. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design. Miami, FL, USA.
18. Gentner, D. & Medina, J. (1998) Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263-297.
19. Harwell, M.R. (1988) Choosing between parametric and nonparametric tests. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 35-38.
20. Hay, D.C. (1996) Data Model Patterns: Conventions of Thought. Dorset House Publishing, New York.
21. Kesh, S. (1995) Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. Information and Software Technology, 37, 681-689.
22. Kim, Y. & March, S.T. (1995) Comparing data modeling formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 38, 103-115.
23. Kitchenham, B. & Linkman, S. (2005) Experiences of using an evaluation framework. Information and Software Technology, 47, 761-774.
24. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I. & Sindre, G. (1995) Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems, pp. 216-231. Marburg, Germany.
25. Larkin, J. & Simon, H. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousands words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
26. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G. & Sølvberg, A. (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11, 42-49.
27. McCarthy, W.E. (1982) The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. The Accounting Review, 57, 554-578.
28. McCarthy, W.E. (1999) Semantic modeling in accounting education, practice, and research: some progress and impediments. In: Conceptual Modeling: Current Issues and Future Directions, Akoka, J., Kangassalo, H. & Thalheim, B. (eds), pp. 144-153. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
29. McCarthy, W.E. (2003) The REA modeling approach to teaching accounting information systems. Issues in Accounting Education, 18, 427-441.
30. McCarthy, W.E. (2004) The evolution toward REA accountability infrastructures for enterprise systems. Keynote Speech 1st International Conference on Enterprise Systems and Accounting (Icesacc'04), Thessaloniki, Greece.
31. March, S.T. & Smith, G.F. (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266.
32. Moody, D.L. (2001) Dealing with complexity: a practical method for representing large entity relationship models. PhD Dissertation. Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne.
33. Moody, D.L. & Shanks, G. (2003) Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework. Information Systems, 28, 619-650.
34. O'Leary, D.E. (2000) Different firms, different ontologies, and no one best ontology. IEEE Intelligent Systems, September/October, 72-78.
35. O'Leary, D.E. (2004) On the relationship between REA and SAP. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 5, 65-81.
36. Parker, R.K., Trimmer, K. & LeRouge, C. (2005) The REA ontology to supplement teaching data flow diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS'05). Omaha, NE, USA.
37. Parsons, J. (2003) Effects of local versus global schema diagrams on verification and communication in conceptual data modeling. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 155-183.
38. Parsons, J. & Cole, L. (2005) What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 327-342.
39. Poels, G., Nelson, J., Genero, M. & Piattini, M. (2003) Quality in conceptual modeling. New research directions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2784, 243-250.
40. Pohl, K. (1994) The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications. Information Systems, 19, 243-258.
41. Price, R. & Shanks, G. (2005) A semiotic information quality framework: development and comparative analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 20, 88-102.
42. Romney, M.B. & Steinbart, P.J. (2006) Accounting Information Systems, 10th edn. Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
43. Schütte, R. & Rotthowe, T. (1998) The guidelines of modeling - an approach to enhance the quality in information models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1507, 240-254.
44. Shoval, P., Danoch, R. & Balaban, M. (2002) Hierarchical ER diagrams (HERD) - the method and experimental evaluation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2784, 264-274.
45. Siau, K. (1999) Information modeling and method engineering: a psychological perspective. Journal of Database Management, 10, 44-50.
46. Siau, K. (2004) Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. Journal of Database Management, 15, 73-86.
47. Siau, K. & Tan, X. (2005a) Technical communication in information systems development: the use of cognitive mapping. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 269-284.
48. Siau, K. & Tan, X. (2005b) Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 343-365.
49. Siau, K., Wand, Y. & Benbasat, I. (1997) The relative importance of structural constraints and surface semantics in information modeling. Information Systems, 22, 155-170.
50. Summers, S.L. (2000) Discussion of perceived semantic expressiveness of accounting systems and task accuracy effects. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 1, 88-90.
51. Tanizaki, H. (1997) Power comparison of non-parametric tests: small-sample properties from Monte Carlo experiments. Journal of Applied Statistics, 45, 603-632.
52. Topi, H. & Ramesh, V. (2002) Human factors research on data modeling: a review of prior research, an extended framework and future research directions. Journal of Database Management, 13, 3-19.
53. UN/CEFACT (2003) UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) User Guide. Technical report CEFACT/TMG/N093.
54. Wand, Y. & Weber, R. (2002) Information systems and conceptual modeling: a research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13, 363-376.