UNDERSTANDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ATTRIBUTES IN ENTITY-RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS

Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 1999

Volumn , Issue , 1999, Pages 214-228

  Burton Jones, Andrew ^a   Weber, Ron ^b  

^a Price Waterhouse Coopers   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Conceptual modeling; entity relationship modeling; experimental research; ontology; perceived ease of understanding; problem solving

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; PROBLEM SOLVING;

CONCEPTUAL MODEL; ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS; ENTITY/RELATIONSHIP MODEL; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; ONTOLOGY'S; PERCEIVED EASE OF UNDERSTANDING; PROBLEM-SOLVING; PROBLEM-SOLVING PERFORMANCE; REAL-WORLD; SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS;

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 84870018841     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Ashcraft, M. H. Human Memory and Cognition, Scott, Glenview, IL: Foresman and Company, 1989.
2. Batra, D.; Hoffer, J. A.; and Bostrom, R. P. “Comparing Representations with Relational and EER Models,” Communications of the ACM (33:2), February 1990, pp. 126-139.
3. Batra, D., and Marakas, G. M. “Conceptual Data Modeling in Theory And Practice,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1995, pp. 185-193.
4. Bunge, M. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, Boston: Reidel, 1977.
5. Chen, P. P. “The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems (1:1), March 1976, pp. 9-36.
6. Davis, F. D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease-of-Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), September 1989, pp. 319-340.
7. nd ed., Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1994.
8. Embley, D. W.; Kurtz, B. D.; and Woodfield, S. N. Object-Oriented Systems Analysis—A Model-Driven Approach, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press, 1992.
9. Gemino, A. To Be or May to Be: An Empirical Comparison of Mandatory and Optional Properties in Conceptual Modeling, Working Paper, University of British Columbia, 1998.
10. Goldstein, R. C., and Storey, V. “Some Findings on the Intuitiveness of Entity-Relationship Constructs,” in Entity-Relationship Approach to Database Design, F. H. Lochovsky (ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., North Holland, 1990, pp. 9-23.
11. Hitchman, S. “Practitioner Perceptions of the Use of Some Semantic Concepts in the Entity-Relationship Model,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1995, pp. 31-40.
12. Kim, Y. G., and March, S. T. “Comparing Data Modeling Formalisms,” Communications of the ACM (38:6), June 1995, pp. 103-115.
13. Maier, R. “Benefits and Quality of Data Modeling—Results of an Empirical Analysis,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, Cottbus, Germany, 7-9 October 1996, pp. 245-260.
14. Mayer, R. E., and Gallini, J. K. “When is an Illustration Worth a Thousand Words,” Journal of Educational Psychology (82:4), 1990, pp. 715-726.
15. Moody, D. L. “Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Singapore, 16-19 November 1998.
16. Moody, D. L., and Shanks, G. “Improving the Quality of Entity-Relationship Models: An Action Research Programme,” The Australian Computer Journal (30:4), November 1998, pp. 129-138.
17. Moore, G., and Benbasat, I. “Development of an Instrument to Measure Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research (2:3), September 1991, pp. 192-222.
18. Ngwenyama, O., and Lee, A. S. “Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 145-167.
19. Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
20. Prietula, M. J., and March, S. T. “Form and Substance in Physical Database Design: An Empirical Study,” Information Systems Research (2:4), December 1991, pp. 287-314.
21. Rumbaugh, J.; Blaha, M.; Premerlani, W.; Eddy, F.; and Lorensen, W. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991.
22. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. “On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars,” Journal of Information Systems (3:4), October 1993, pp. 217-237.
23. Weber, R. “Are Attributes Entities? A Study of Database Designers’ Memory Structures,” Information Systems Research (7:2), June 1996, pp. 137-162.
24. Weber, R. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems, Melbourne: Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4, 1997.