Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling

Open access
Wand, Yair, Storey, Veda C., Weber, Ron·1999·ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Abstract

Conceptual models or semantic data models were developed to capture the meaning of an application domain as perceived by someone. Moreover, concepts employed in semantic data models have recently been adopted in object-oriented approaches to systems analysis and design. To employ conceptual modeling constructs effectively, their meanings have to be defined rigorously. Often, however, rigorous definitions of these constructs are missing. This situation occurs especially in the case of the relationship construct. Empirical evidence shows that use of relationships is often problematical as a way of communicating the meaning of an application domain. For example, users of conceptual modeling methodologies are frequently confused about whether to show an association between things via a relationship, an entity, or an attribute. Because conceptual models are intended to capture knowledge about a real-world domain, we take the view that the meaning of modeling constructs should be sought in models of reality. Accordingly, we use ontology, which is the branch of philosophy dealing with models of reality, to analyze the meaning of common conceptual modeling constructs. Our analysis provides a precise definition of several conceptual modeling constructs. Based on our analysis, we derive rules for the use of relationships in entity-relationship conceptual modeling. Moreover, we show how the rules resolve ambiguities that exist in current practice and how they can enrich the capacity of an entity-relationship conceptual model to capture knowledge about an application domain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/331983.331989

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Database Systems
Published
1999-12
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
494-528
ISSN
  • 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-4644
OpenAlex
W2093823648
Cited by
411
References
33
FWCI
17.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/331983.331989
The paper
Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R. (1999). An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/331983.331989

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.