Home | | Database Management Systems | ER Diagrams, Naming Conventions, and Design Issues

Chapter: Fundamentals of Database Systems : Conceptual Modeling and Database Design : Data Modeling Using the Entity-Relationship (ER) Model

ER Diagrams, Naming Conventions, and Design Issues

1. Summary of Notation for ER Diagrams 2. Proper Naming of Schema Constructs 3. Design Choices for ER Conceptual Design 4. Alternative Notations for ER Diagrams

ER Diagrams, Naming Conventions, and Design Issues


1. Summary of Notation for ER Diagrams


Figures 7.9 through 7.13 illustrate examples of the participation of entity types in relationship types by displaying their sets or extensions—the individual entity instances in an entity set and the individual relationship instances in a relationship set. In ER diagrams the emphasis is on representing the schemas rather than the instances. This is more useful in database design because a database schema changes rarely, whereas the contents of the entity sets change frequently. In addition, the schema is obviously easier to display, because it is much smaller.


Figure 7.2 displays the COMPANY ER database schema as an ER diagram. We now review the full ER diagram notation. Entity types such as EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT, and PROJECT are shown in rectangular boxes. Relationship types such as WORKS_FOR, MANAGES, CONTROLS, and WORKS_ON are shown in diamond-shaped boxes attached to the participating entity types with straight lines. Attributes are shown in ovals, and each attribute is attached by a straight line to its entity type or relationship type. Component attributes of a composite attribute are attached to the oval representing the composite attribute, as illustrated by the Name attribute of EMPLOYEE. Multivalued attributes are shown in double ovals, as illustrated by the Locations attribute of DEPARTMENT. Key attributes have their names underlined. Derived attributes are shown in dotted ovals, as illustrated by the Number_of_employees attribute of DEPARTMENT.


Weak entity types are distinguished by being placed in double rectangles and by having their identifying relationship placed in double diamonds, as illustrated by the DEPENDENT entity type and the DEPENDENTS_OF identifying relationship type. The partial key of the weak entity type is underlined with a dotted line.


In Figure 7.2 the cardinality ratio of each binary relationship type is specified by attaching a 1, M, or N on each participating edge. The cardinality ratio of DEPARTMENT:EMPLOYEE in MANAGES is 1:1, whereas it is 1:N for DEPARTMENT: EMPLOYEE in WORKS_FOR, and M:N for WORKS_ON. The participation constraint is specified by a single line for partial participation and by double lines for total participation (existence dependency).


In Figure 7.2 we show the role names for the SUPERVISION relationship type because the same EMPLOYEE entity type plays two distinct roles in that relationship. Notice that the cardinality ratio is 1:N from supervisor to supervisee because each employee in the role of supervisee has at most one direct supervisor, whereas an employee in the role of supervisor can supervise zero or more employees.


Figure 7.14 summarizes the conventions for ER diagrams. It is important to note that there are many other alternative diagrammatic notations (see Section 7.7.4 and Appendix A).


2. Proper Naming of Schema Constructs


When designing a database schema, the choice of names for entity types, attributes, relationship types, and (particularly) roles is not always straightforward. One should choose names that convey, as much as possible, the meanings attached to the different constructs in the schema. We choose to use singular names for entity types, rather than plural ones, because the entity type name applies to each individual entity belonging to that entity type. In our ER diagrams, we will use the convention that entity type and relationship type names are uppercase letters, attribute names have their initial letter capitalized, and role names are lowercase letters. We have used this convention in Figure 7.2.


As a general practice, given a narrative description of the database requirements, the nouns appearing in the narrative tend to give rise to entity type names, and the verbs tend to indicate names of relationship types. Attribute names generally arise from additional nouns that describe the nouns corresponding to entity types.


Another naming consideration involves choosing binary relationship names to make the ER diagram of the schema readable from left to right and from top to bot-tom. We have generally followed this guideline in Figure 7.2. To explain this naming convention further, we have one exception to the convention in Figure 7.2—the DEPENDENTS_OF relationship type, which reads from bottom to top. When we describe this relationship, we can say that the DEPENDENT entities (bottom entity type) are DEPENDENTS_OF (relationship name) an EMPLOYEE (top entity type). To change this to read from top to bottom, we could rename the relationship type to HAS_DEPENDENTS, which would then read as follows: An EMPLOYEE entity (top entity type) HAS_DEPENDENTS (relationship name) of type DEPENDENT (bottom entity type). Notice that this issue arises because each binary relationship can be described starting from either of the two participating entity types, as discussed in the beginning of Section 7.4.


3. Design Choices for ER Conceptual Design

It is occasionally difficult to decide whether a particular concept in the miniworld should be modeled as an entity type, an attribute, or a relationship type. In this

section, we give some brief guidelines as to which construct should be chosen in particular situations.


In general, the schema design process should be considered an iterative refinement process, where an initial design is created and then iteratively refined until the most suitable design is reached. Some of the refinements that are often used include the following:


        A concept may be first modeled as an attribute and then refined into a rela-tionship because it is determined that the attribute is a reference to another entity type. It is often the case that a pair of such attributes that are inverses of one another are refined into a binary relationship. We discussed this type of refinement in detail in Section 7.6. It is important to note that in our notation, once an attribute is replaced by a relationship, the attribute itself should be removed from the entity type to avoid duplication and redundancy.


        Similarly, an attribute that exists in several entity types may be elevated or promoted to an independent entity type. For example, suppose that several entity types in a UNIVERSITY database, such as STUDENT, INSTRUCTOR, and COURSE, each has an attribute Department in the initial design; the designer


may then choose to create an entity type DEPARTMENT with a single attribute Dept_name and relate it to the three entity types (STUDENT, INSTRUCTOR, and COURSE) via appropriate relationships. Other attributes/relationships of DEPARTMENT may be discovered later.


        An inverse refinement to the previous case may be applied—for example, if an entity type DEPARTMENT exists in the initial design with a single attribute Dept_name and is related to only one other entity type, STUDENT. In this case, DEPARTMENT may be reduced or demoted to an attribute of STUDENT.


        Section 7.9 discusses choices concerning the degree of a relationship. In Chapter 8, we discuss other refinements concerning specialization/general-ization. Chapter 10 discusses additional top-down and bottom-up refinements that are common in large-scale conceptual schema design.


4. Alternative Notations for ER Diagrams


There are many alternative diagrammatic notations for displaying ER diagrams. Appendix A gives some of the more popular notations. In Section 7.8, we introduce the Unified Modeling Language (UML) notation for class diagrams, which has been proposed as a standard for conceptual object modeling.


In this section, we describe one alternative ER notation for specifying structural constraints on relationships, which replaces the cardinality ratio (1:1, 1:N, M:N) and single/double line notation for participation constraints. This notation involves associating a pair of integer numbers (min, max) with each participation of an entity type E in a relationship type R, where 0 min max and max 1. The num-bers mean that for each entity e in E, e must participate in at least min and at most max relationship instances in R at any point in time. In this method, min = 0 implies partial participation, whereas min > 0 implies total participation.


Figure 7.15 displays the COMPANY database schema using the (min, max) notation. Usually, one uses either the cardinality ratio/single-line/double-line notation or the (min, max) notation. The (min, max)

notation is more precise, and we can use it to specify some structural constraints for relationship types of higher degree. However, it is not sufficient for specifying some key constraints on higher-degree relationships, as discussed in Section 7.9.


Figure 7.15 also displays all the role names for the COMPANY database schema.

Study Material, Lecturing Notes, Assignment, Reference, Wiki description explanation, brief detail
Fundamentals of Database Systems : Conceptual Modeling and Database Design : Data Modeling Using the Entity-Relationship (ER) Model : ER Diagrams, Naming Conventions, and Design Issues |

Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant

Copyright © 2018-2024 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.