A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests
Information Systems Research
Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, The (2nd Edition)
Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, The (2nd Edition)
Fundamentals of Database Systems, Fourth Edition
Fundamentals of Database Systems, Fourth Edition
Database Modeling and Design: Logical Design (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Data Management Systems)
Database Modeling and Design: Logical Design (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Data Management Systems)
Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The (2nd Edition) (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series)
Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The (2nd Edition) (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series)
Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management
Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management
Modern Database Management
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Allen and March provide a critique of one of our papers in which we argue composites should be represented as entities/objects in a conceptual model rather than relationships/associations (Shanks et al. 2008). They contend we have addressed a non-issue. Furthermore, they argue our theoretical rationale and empirical evidence have flaws. In this paper, we provide a response to their arguments. We show that the issue we address is substantive. We show, also, that our theoretical analysis and empirical results are robust. We find, instead, that Allen and March's theoretical arguments and empirical evidence have flaws.