Talk:Entity–relationship model

667:

original) is distinguished from the others by representing relationship types explicitly as "first class objects" (nodes) rather than as lines (edges). AFAICT, every diagram in any of the other (non-Chen) styles of "ERD" is isomorphic to a relational schema and, therefore, to a diagram in any of the other styles. In other words, any non-Chen "ERD" can be converted to a non-Chen "ERD" in one of the other styles by a simple relabeling and no "mapping procedure" is needed to obtain a relational schema; they are, therefore, merely alternative representations of relational schemata. There is information loss in mapping from a Chen-style ERD to a relational schema (e.g. compound attributes are flattened), so it *is* different and, IMHO, operates at a somewhat higher level of abstraction. The assertion that the Chen-style diagram "is not standard" is simply false: it may not be your favourite style (e.g. IDEF(1X)), but it is a perfectly standard Chen-style (i.e. "original") ERD and these are used for pedagogic purposes in textbooks (c.f. Elmasri & Navathe) and university courses (at least two that I know of in two different countries) all over the world. --

2486:

conclude that the plaform independent model (i.e. ER-diagram) is unsuitable. To cite ref 25: "First, a logical representation is conceived to describe, at the appropriate level of abstraction, how data is stored in a specific DBMS, ..." This is absolutely NOT the reason for the logical model. The logical model describes what entities consist of and how they relate (i.e. business rules). Those ruels can't be broken. It has nothing to do with "... how data is stored ...". The business rules and info structure have a right of existance of their own - completely decoupled from implementation. The ER-model is the specification, the (R)DBMS is the implementation that must obey the ER-model. This is, however, not the same as saying how an entity type shall be implemented. It can be tables, multidimensional cubes or whatever form that is suitable for the implementation.

1404:

proprietary and open source software as I was trying to find a software that fullfill my need, and as I expected, many other people contributed with solutions and finally I dicovered Power*Architect which has recently became open-source. I am a System Analyst of a major brazilian governament company and my division has adopted this software for it´s use after these events. So I think is really helpful, and ask you to leave it. As you may already know, there isn´t any open-source solution in this area with the recent exception I told you. Our best hope is Power*Architect and brModelo. Please don´t remove this list. Other softwares may appear and this page is my (and others) first source of information.

2137:"People didn't even realize that ER could be bastardized into a conceptual modeling grammar until well after this notation was developed." I know it's tough to ask you to prove a negative, but I wonder if you can explain why you think this? The consultants I was working with in the mid 1970s certainly considered that they were formalising notations for conceptual modelling that were independent of logical database design. Also, it's unclear what you mean by "bastardized". You claim that ER "is" a grammar, then you say the grammar is a "bastardization" of ER. 238: 2409:

within the British Computer Society at the time. This predated the Chen paper but Chen was usually considered the academic father of ER modeling simply because he published one of the first papers on the subject and it was very influential. His use of Relationships as first class objects was generally rejected at the time, as it didn't prove very useful for the practicioners. It supports n-ary relationships and the databases of the time didn't have much use for such relationships.

999:

your model and there is no fixed method to go from your ER diagram to your relational model, and, as was already explained, the scope of the ER model is much wider than just a method to arrive at your relational model. So what then is it exactly that you mean with this mysterious "methodological aspect"? It's still as if you want to believe that the ER model is a method. Please don't. Apart from being incorrect that view is much too narrow and does unjustice to the ER model. :-) --

2152:"ER is a modeling grammar, not a technique. You can only describe one ontology with an ER diagram, ..." Sounds to me like a lot of big words. You should confine all these higher abstractions to another section, where I and most programmers can conveniently skip over them. Because, although they are concepts involved with ER diagrams, knowing them will rarely help one understand what they are - more likely, one is learning the meaning of 'modeling grammar' and 'ontology'. 2100:

describe one ontology with an ER diagram, that is, one in which the world is composed of entities and relationships. The discussion of mapping conceptual to logical data models is deeply misleading - there is no evidence that most teams bother with such an abstract process. The classical notation is not for conceptual modeling - people didn't even realize that ER could be bastardized into a conceptual modeling grammar until well after this notation was developed.

148: 124: 2286:) have their own article(s); you may want to start there, e.g. by merging them. I do agree that a more unified perspective on database diagramming and information diagramming is necessary, but in IT we all know only the languages we've been taught, even if the neighbours use a different one to say the same things. So I'm not sure a single article would suffice. However at least some notes on developments and more crosslinking would be in order. 2656:- I prefer to place the most important aspect of the article, the topic, at the start of the lead sentence. I think the only time it's better to put something else first is when there are other usages of the term in other domains and we need to make sure the reader knows at the very start which domain we are talking about. In this case there are no other domains in which ER models occur so there is no need to emphasize the domain as is done in A. 1909: 2218:“… entity to mean a particular object being considered; the term entity class will mean an entire group of entities which are sufficiently similar, in terms of attributes that describe them, to be considered collectively … entity set … associates a group of entities in one entity class with one entity of a different entity class in a subordinate relationship” page 4 of "Bachman, C. W. (1969) Data Structure Diagrams. DATA BASE 1(2): 4-10" 158: 2246:

for IBM, in the insurance industry. He evangelized the use of distributed intelligence and distributed database architectures throughout the 1970’s." See meeting notice for DAMA Philadelphi/Delaware Valley 10th January, 2007. While at CACI, London he worked with a number of key professionals including Ian Palmer, Rosemary Rock-Evans, Richard Barker and Keith Short all of whom made significant contributions to this field.

78: 53: 1899: 2121:

that it is wrong for this article to be so casual and take it for granted, but isn't exactly the only text on database design that does this. As to the difference between grammar and technique, I think this is a matter of definitions: your "grammar" is another person's "technique". Anyhow, there is much room for improvement. Looking forward to your improvements or suggestions for them.

22: 2417:

optionality and inclusive/exclusive relationships. At the time, CACI had two database cunsultancy offices in Europe, one in the UK and one in the Netherlands and they worked closely together on ER modeling. After that came Richard Barker, Rosemary Rock-Evans and others at CACI who documented the approach. From there it moved to James Martin Associates and then to Oracle.

1611:

USA. The ERM deliverable was both a verbal model and diagrammatic representation of the terms describing a domain. Clive may have known of Barry Leigh's work through working within IBM. Software engineering emerged from a NATO conference and while it probably now embraces ERM's these days, it had a different focus back then?

3121:

On thing that could help is to call it Entity Relationship Diagram that describe a set of possible, practical notations and tools to describe a relational database schema and leave the conceptual model description out and move it a more high level articale comparing hierarchical, network and relation

2169:

Management displays a commitment to ER diagrams and UML modeling, and everything is designed with big fanfare and lots of effort into a big ER diagram. The ER diagram is faithfully transcribed into SQL tables and what not. The first few times there's changes, they go back and pencil in stuff in the

2690:, not how it changes or can change. You can see this from the example given: a building or an apartment is not a process. (They can be relevant to a business process, and describing all things relevant to a business process goes some way towards describing that process, but it is not the same thing.) 2229:

I think Chen is usually credited as the originator because he was the first person to have an article on entity-relationship models published in the academic literature; he was also the first to formalize them. The earlier work (by people like Ian Palmer of Scicon) was practical consultancy and it's

2000:

The fact that StarUML, a UML modeling tool, was listed in this article as a ER modelling tool for two years suggests that either I'm unaware of StarUML's true capabilities or it would be worthwhile to add a section explaining the differences between ER models and UML class models in detail. Mind if

1695:

article, "Information Engineering ... is an approach to designing and developing information systems". It's not therefore an example of a notation "more typically employed in logical and physical database design". The IE methodology does use entity-relationship diagrams, and I've added a wikilink to

1056:

Formally a relation is a set of tupels that fullfill a relation-schema (they share the same attributes). According to a specific relation schema a tupel might be complete or not. If not complete certain attributes contain NULL-values in the relation. Colloqial a relation is described as a table in a

998:

a meta model (with a graphical notation and some semantics), so that is of course what the introduction should explain. Why are you uncomfortable with that? I also fail to see why you connect that with a methodological aspect because that link is very very weak. There is no fixed method to arrive at

444:

I've added a first example diagram. I'd like to include some more images but I'm having trouble deciding which examples would best clarify some of the text. Also, I'm wondering if it'd make any sense to upload the original Dia files and refer to them from the Image:erd-*.png nodes for if anyone else

3072:

do not belong in the conceptual model and by extension in the ERD which merely visualizes the conceptual model. Primary keys are relevant to the Logical Model (which broadly translates the conceptual model in terms of a given database model (often relational). Simply put, real world entities do not

2412:

The techniques and notation used in ER modeling were developed by the database practicioners of the time. The problem that was being addressed was the inflexibility of CODASYL databases, such as DMS1100 (Univac) and IDMS which I think was used by ICL, hence their interest in ER modeling. You had to

2408:

I started using Entity Modeling in approximately 1974 at the City of Westminster in London. This was based on work at ICL by Harry Ellis and David Gradwell et al. David Gradwell may well be able to provide even earlier history. A lot of the pioneers were related to the Data Dictionary Working Group

2245:

Mention should also be made of J. Barrie Leigh "Mr. Leigh began his interest in E-R modeling techniques as a systems engineer for IBM in the UK, developing his first E-R diagram in 1971 for an annuity system of Royal Insurance. He was a recognized leader of transactional and database systems design

2207:

The article starts from the wrong premise. It is based on Peter Chen's view of this topic. Much original thinking had already taken place within IBM and some London based consultancies, to my knowledge and probably elsewhere too. In the interests of clarity it would help to recognise the history of

2042:

yeah, Entity-Relationship-Attribute model is pretty much the same. Entities and relationships have attributes - that's where the data's stored. When it comes time to make a real database, all the relationships are described with attributes too. Often, every entity has an integer ID - 1, 2, ....

1836:

Can anyone justify the Bachmann diagram? I definitely recall that in Bachmann diagrams, the arrow-head goes from "owner" to "member", that is from the "1" end of a relationship to the "many" end: I remember people criticising it for that. And I don't know what these open and solid circles are doing

1816:

Now I resored it again, but I don't understand, why it was removed here in the first place? There shouldn't be a list of over 50 tools, half of it not even notable enough to have a Knowledge article of it's own. Lists like that are an invitation to keep spamming this article, with every new unknown

1610:

The beginning of the article is misleading. ERM's history begins with Charlie Bachman's database diagrams and from there to Barrie Leigh's data modelling at IBM in 1971 and on to at least three threads: Tony Carter and Ian Palmer at CACI, London, Clive Finkelstein in Australia and Peter Chen in the

666:

The problem is that there are at least half-a-dozen different diagrammatic notations, which people call "ERDs". Proponents of IDEF(1X), Crow's Foot, Chen-style, and at least two others that I can draw but can't name, will insist that their style is the "one true ERD". The Chen style (which *is* the

421:

Another issue is the (universal) confusion between entities and entity sets, relationships and relationship sets. This article dutifully explains the "correct" use of the terms, but before it does so has already used them "incorrectly" (i.e. how everybody uses them in practice) quite a few times.

2470:

While this section is called Limitations, its bulleted list includes a wider range of content. See for example the items that simply highlight various extensions (or outright alternatives, like Anchor Modeling and EER). I'd expect the points to directly state the limitation of ER modeling and then

2120:

You will need to further quality your "wrong". The approach to distinguish separate design phases, in which a conceptual, logical and physical model are created in turn, is common in database design courses. It is not universally taught or followed, but that does not make it "wrong". I do agree

625:

I suspect we should replace the Artist-Song relationship with a Product-Recommendation relationship, because Artist-Song is really a many-to-many relationship if we are going to be true to the real world, and we need a one-to-many relationship to best illustrate the diagramming convention. My one

2099:

Everything in the overview is wrong. There is no "first stage" of IS design. Different teams start different ways. ER diagrams are primarily intended for representing existing databases, not for conceptual modeling and requirements analysis. ER is a modeling grammar, not a technique. You can only

677:

No, the Chen style is NOT the original. Consultants at Scicon and CACI in the UK were using a kind of crow's foot notation in the early 1970s. But they didn't write academic papers about it, so it's hard to prove. ER modelling was invented by practitioners, not by Chen; Chen's contribution was to

552:

I strongly disagree. Since the article's subject is the Entity-Relationship Model it should use the classical notation. Any other choice would be somewhat arbitrary as there are many tools and many dialects and none of them is really predominant. Most (database) textbooks I know use the classical

3067:

Some experts maintain that the ERD is a graphical tool to visualize a conceptual model (which is by the way a different thing from the conceptual schema). A conceptual model is supposed to represent the business world (the universe of discourse or domain of interest that the model is supposed to

2924:

Both the "fan-trap" issue and the 'chasm-trap' are a clear indications that the model is missing critical pieces. The sane path forward is to update the ER-model. In the 'fan-trap' case, the model is missing an assignment relation (e.g. staff-department in ref 24). In the 'chasm-trap' a relation

2489:

Ref 25 continues: "... but it is usually not expressive enough to capture in an effective way the essential, multidimensional aspects of a data warehousing application." The ER model is as expressive as the modeller can ever make it. ER-models can be expressive enough to be directly compiled to

2485:

In addition, the last bullet in the list ("For modelling temporal databases ...") is just flat out wrong - Especially the part that ER would be unsuitable for multidimensional databases. What the refered paper (ref 25) does is to highlight needs of the platform specific model (a DBMS) and then

2174:

That's the way it seems to work. A programmer says to herself, "OK for each Foo, are there many Bars? For each Bar, are there many Foos?" Then the answer is obvious and fields are added to tables as the software evolves. No ER diagram is even visualized, although sometimes in sticky cases,

1950:

I was stunned to see such a strange example of an ERD! I came to Knowledge for some clarity and went away dumbfounded. There is so much detailed, and sometimes erroneous, disagreement that, if this discourse is held to be a serious source for producing ERDs, then Heaven help data modelling!

2416:

After Westminster, I joined CACI in the Netherlands and participated in the development of ER modeling with Ian Palmer, David Gradwell, Bernie Benetto and others. We introduced concepts and notation for entity subtypes and supertypes, time based data (ways to model dynamic data), relationship

1403:

I undid your removal of the non-notable softwares in Entity-Relationshiup Diagram page, because it has already helped me and I belive other users in finding a solution that can be adequate for creating this diagram with an open-source solution. I was the initial person who divided the list in

986:

Sorry for again starting a method discussion. The introduction sounds as if the ERModel is a data model for a data model - a meta model - which for me has an implicit methodological aspect. I think this was, what caused my discomfort. Wouldn't it be simplier (and still correct) to say "A

2697:) and instances of such models (actual information structured described according to such schemas). For instance, it should be clarified that a description of a particular set of buildings and apartments will be an instance of an ER model describing buildings and apartments in general. 2516:

Does anyone else feel like the resource linked to from the external links section is poor quality? The information is helpful but the formatting and readability issues seem to detract from the ability for a normal user to find the page useful. Any suggestions for a better resource?

566:

I suppose we should use Roman Numerals for math articles since they are a more "classical representation". I have been involved with data modeling for nearly 20 years and have never seen an ER diagram like that. I agree that IDEF1X is generally considered the best representation.

2024:. But I was unable to find an entry for ERA model or Entity-Relationship-Attribute on Knowledge. I've created both those pages and redirected them to here. But I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some hidden distinction between an ER model and an ERA model. Otherwise, I guess 2043:

like the Person table could have an id field (attribute) named id. And another entity that has a relationship with that entity just points to the entity by storing the integer ID, like a phone record might have a field named person_id that points to the person who owns it.

1595:

It might also be helpful to provide a bit more context to somebody very new to the subject. For example, you might add something very basic such as, "Data models can become complicated quickly. An ERM is a tool that helps the designer to visualize and improve the design"...

1145:

a particular modelling language. Anyway, I should've been more specific: ER itself sux, the real modeling language is known as EER (Extended ER or Enhanced ER), which includes leak entities, unions, derivations, etc). I'll go through the software list again and get back to

2937:

truly authoritive (yes I know I spell "authoritive" differently than most)? It looks like someones' college notes. What qualifies bernatja at the University of Regina as an authority? Or can I just create a page somewhere about something and cite it as an authority?

934:

I think there was some misunderstanding here. A character would indeed run into an instance of a creep during the game - but that's not what this database is storing. This database is storing each type of creep which the character has encountered. -- Matthew Tardiff

539:

This diagram is not remotely similar to the methods used by nearly all of the major ER tools in use today. IDEF1X is far and away a more common mechanism, as are derivatives of that method that vary primarily in the symbols used to indicate n-ary relationships.

1183:

in particular was really good, and it's totally free and easily accessible from anywhere with an internet connection, unlike the others. You would however be technically right in that it is a relation schema designer and not an (E)ER diagram designer.

2359:

If the whole article is seen as an intelligent layman's overview of E-R modelling, the material presented throughout (but not in this sub-section) is quite hard enough. This sub-section on 'Cardinalities' is pitched at completely the wrong level.

2175:

entities are drawn like single database rows with individual fields, with relationship arrows coming out of the specific field that they inhabit, scribbled quickly on a piece of scrap paper in red ink. The relationships are always many-to-one.

2363:

As a seasoned ADP | EDP | DP | Computing | IT | ICT professional, I ask myself: What problem is the sub-section on 'Cardinalities' trying to solve? I can only conclude it's driving towards the quote from Feinerer, referencing Hartmann:

326:

In 13 years doing database work in the United States, I've Foot notation everywhere. This part needs a citation: "Usage of Chen notation is more prevalent in the United States, while Crow's Foot notation is used primarily in the UK."

1463:. The simplest and most common inclusion criteria is to only include entries in the list that have their own Knowledge articles. However, another simple way it to simply find a reliable source that provides a list for us to use. -- 2471:

identify the extension or alternative as a solution to the described limitation. As is it looks more like a random list of additional information than a list of limitations. The alternative would be to simply rename this section.

1979:

Can you be more specific on your confusion? Dumbfounding people is not the goal of Knowledge articles, but they can't ignore the fact that these languages, like all languages, have dialects and complicated family relationships.

822:

On the contrary Epachmo, it's mostly those in your demographic and culture who relate to these games. The people who read Knowledge are very diverse. People who are likely to read this particular article would easily include

1585:

The beginning of the article doesn't look encyclopedic. May I suggest: "ERM is a technique for the structure design of data on databases" or something like that? It would say the same it does now, but in a different order...

1124:

ThG, what precisely do you mean by "not even drawing real ER"? ER is not a particular modelling language, there are many different notations for ER. Was there any specific products in the list that you are concerned don't

987:

Entity-Relationship model is a high-level description of a conceptual data model. Entity-Relationship models include graphical notations for representing such data models in the form of entity-relationship diagrams". --

410:

You have a good point there - I think conversion from ER model to logical relational model must be treated if only to make the point that the ER model is not an informal drawing technique but has a sound formal basis.

2420:

Bachman's early work may have had some influence on ER modeling but it would have had to have been very early and relatively limited as we considered his approach more of a different and rival approach at the time.

2375:

If all the sub-section manages to say is that "look-across semantics don't work", or "... don't properly represent the meanings of the relations between entities", shouldn't the article then say what we DO about it?

375:

I must say that I agree at least on the lack of clarity of the first sentence. Either its meaning is wrong or it is poorly written. Whichever it is, the first sentence of the introduction is misleading to the least.

2413:

get the schema right as it was very difficult to alter it once the database was in production. This lead to the use of ER modeling as a basis for database design so that the schema would be well designed initially.

1244:

The "ER diagramming tools" section is becoming a linkfarm, with the inappropriate external links. The section may be large enough to become a separate article as well. For now, I'm removing the external links per

307:"...for instance, your entry in the database could point to several entries for each of the phone numbers that are yours" I can't understand what this is trying to say. First off, what does it mean "your entry". -- 2214:

History ER Diagrams were first introduced by Charles Bachman. "Bachman Diagrams" described data structures, however, he did however go further and recognised the need to model at a higher level of abstraction.

1837:

on the line. Arguably it doesn't really have a place here anyway, because the Codasyl model was never presented to the world as an ER model or as a data modelling technique (as destinct from a database model).

1420:

Please discuss this on the article talk page. There are a couple of ways where something like this could be made to work, but it's going to take more than this I'm afraid. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007

2531:

I left in the poorly formatted resource but deleted a page that had a bunch of affiliate links at the bottom and also a resource that 404ed. I also added a diagramming tool that is free that I like to use.

2221:

See a fuller discussion of the whole topic of Bachman and Chen diagramming in "The Entity Relationship Model And Practical Data Modelling By Steve Hitchman 2004, Journal of Conceptual Modeling, April 2004".

543:

I suggest we replace this article with one that is similar to the article referenced by the IDEF1X link (US Navy, I think). This article is absolutely useless for practitioners and students of ER models.

1106:

The software currently listed is mostly shareware. Can this list cleaned up?? Most of the software doesn't even draw real (E)ER! They are *DATABASE* design tools, (E)ER is a particular modeling language.

1495:

Ronz, you cleaned up the links once again. Can we please have a written statement on the criteria for including links here? Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth on this without any real progress.

436:

Any chance someone could mock up a set of images showing what these symbols are supposed to look like? Describing them is all well and good, but a picture can be worth a thousand words. :) Thanks,

3147: 724:

My group and I designed this ER diagram and I photoshopped it up. What we had in mind was that the creeps themselves would be molds for individual instantiations. For a simple example, think of

3111:

This article mixes model and diagram in a very confusing way. Confusing for both readers as authors. It starts off rather well in the introduction defining three different levels of model or the

2020:

I'm guessing "ERA model" is just a more uncommon name for "ER model"? The reason I ask is that a newsgroup I read had a post with someone asking for an "ERA modeler", which I looked up and found

951:

That makes more sense. I think the confusion comes from the phrase "runs into". It would be better if instead it read, Character "Has encountered this type of" Creep or something like that.

2356:

The whole section 'Relationships, roles and cardinalities' smacks of either original research or personal opinion. At the very least, it needs some citations to support its contentions.

2490:

running applications (see xtUML). Correctness is the realm of the ER-modell. Efficienvy is the realm of the platform specific model (i.e. the specific implementation of the ER-model).

979:

If it were a method it would be called the Entity-Relationshp Method. The researchers at the ER 2004 would be highly amazed by your claim that the ER model is not a data model. --

1088:

A tuple is the correct term, and probably should be mentioned on the article somewhere, although I usually prefer the term row or record because it reaches a wider audience.

1085:

To put it into common language, if your brother is a "relation" (aka "entity"), then you have a "relationship" with him, keeping in mind that this is a rather rough analogy.

2625:

for describing the data or information aspects of a business domain or its process requirements, in an abstract way that lends itself to ultimately being implemented in a

2590:

for describing the data or information aspects of a business domain or its process requirements, in an abstract way that lends itself to ultimately being implemented in a

3162: 246: 343:

This part needs a citation: "Usage of Chen notation is more prevalent in the United States, while Crow's Foot notation is used primarily in the UK and Australasia."

2887:

The present text suggests that these problems are limitations or drawbacks of ER modeling; it suggests that ER models correcting these problems do not exist. From

1478:

Ronz, I´ll try to find a realiable source in the next couple of days. Would you please leave the list online in the meantime ? And thank you for your information.

3115:

and than leaves that and jumps right into different diagramms and loses track about which is what pretty quickly. For me diagrams are tools to describe a model.

3009: 3005: 2991: 2817: 2813: 2799: 850:

BTW, we can retain your diagram too. If you're game to reproduce the same diagram using a few different notations, it could become a very useful cross reference.

1805:. Some free software diagram tools which can't create ER diagrams but just draw the shapes without having any knowledge of what they mean or generating SQL are 2306:

The sub-section on 'Cardinalities' assumes much information not provided within the article, and uses the following terms without explanation or motivation:

1643:

Visio is mentioned as a free tool to create diagramms, but the Link directs to Microsoft Visio. Is there a free tool with the same name? (I can't find one)

2225:

ER diagrams were popularised by Dr. Pin-Shan (Peter) Chen in 1976, but he drew on the previous work of his colleagues, one of whom was Charles Bachman.

813:

Super Mario Brothers was not the issue I was bringing up. I personally think the current diagram is a great example. Everybody can relate to games.

3157: 218: 2925:

between a computer and e.g. an owner. This is not an issue with ER. It's an issue with the modeller's limited understanding of the problem at hand.

228: 3118:

I realize that there are quite some opinions floating around here but this article as it is now is not very useful for students or experts alike.

2777: 570: 767:

that is relatable for everyone is a high priority, do you have a preference from the ideas listed below, or perhaps another idea for a suitable

640:

section, putting the "Crow's Feet" notation at the top until such time as we have a more appropriate notation available. Please let me know.

2372:

This surely is, at once, both too abstract and too low-level a consideration for the "intelligent layman" who has read the previous material?

1027:

Unfortunately, after reading the entry I was even more confused, because the "Common symbols" section seems to use both words interchangeably:

3167: 3152: 204: 3093: 1650: 1528: 1201:. They look like real players in the market. Asking for volunteers to create a separate wikipedia pages for them so they can be relisted 2454:

For many systems, the possible changes to the information contained are nontrivial and important enough to warrant explicit specification.

1060:

A relationship describes the dependence between two or more relations using a primary key in one a foreign key in the depending relation.

889:, although clearly not as adequate as the Sales domain I'll try and get them up using several different notations for cross-reference. -- 2497: 2191: 1967: 1672: 1443:

Not bad at all. Quoting is a pain. I changed the formatting slightly, moved your signature to the end, and introduced the response. --

936: 574: 269: 2069: 330: 308: 1774: 2987:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2262: 1627: 359: 2164:

Management displays a commitment to ER diagrams and UML modeling. But nobody draws such diagrams, and they all just hack as in #1.

1883: 843:, men and women from 18 to 65 years, many of whom would be unfamiliar with computer games. I'm thinking to proceed with the Sales 2084:

Not so. The overview is rubbish. The recent edits have made it worse. Far too many ignorant people have contributed to this page.

1915:

So confused. Enlightened ones, take corrective measures if you please. No need to reply to this, I probably won't read the reply.

2379:

For the present, I suggest scrapping all the text under the sub-heading "Cardinalities" and replacing it with an explanation of:

2368:'Problems arise if we operate under the look-across semantics as used for UML associations ... different transformations fail.' 847:

from the paragraph above, which I suspect is the area that people from most cultures and backgrounds would be able to relate to.

2437: 84: 58: 698:

I'm almost positive that the character should run into the creep instantiation and not the creep? Could someone verify this?

1547:

I fixed the image of the crow feet, with the vertical line and the O being the wrong way round and uploaded the new version.

2961: 2749: 1924: 1347:: ER Diagram modeller in Java, Modelling and forward engineering for several databases, both free software and proprietary. 2398: 2159:

They just hack. As with the flowcharts that describe simple IF statements, all these clumsy diagrams have been tossed out.

708:

What in the world is "creep instantiation"??? I've never heard of it and got no hits on Google when I searched for it. --

919:

that it would make better sense that a Character should run into and Instance of a creep and not the Creep's "concept". --

592:

What about the cardinalities of relationships? I thought these were annotated by numbers on the arcs of the relationships?

171: 129: 3052: 33: 626:

concern is whether the editor who originally created the Artist-Song diagram can modify it to Product-Recommendation?

2977: 1030:"Relationships im single can be thought of as verbs. Examples: an owns relation between a company and a computer ..." 1797:

Some free software ER diagramming tools that can interpret and generate ER models, SQL and do database analysis are

2884:

From the present text, I don't understand what the problems are. It should be clarified, preferably with examples.

2394: 2033: 1033:

Is this uncertainty inherent in those words? Or is there any consensus on how to distinguish these three levels:

3068:

represent) and such constructs like "keys" or "indices" or "privileges", etc. which are the peculiarities of the

1715:

Some wereks ago I trimmed a long list of software programs supporting supporting Entity-relationship models, see

1198: 1118: 1079: 886: 637: 614: 486: 3008:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2909:

Agreed. I don't know why this section is here. These are not failures of ER, but failures to do ER correctly.

2816:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2778:

https://web.archive.org/20160108012618/http://www.databasedesign.co.uk/bookdatabasesafirstcourse/chap3/chap3.htm

2155:

My experience as a professional programmer tells me that most databases are designed like one of the following:

363: 338: 2726:

redirects to this article, but the term isn't mentioned, and I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain?

2386:

why we choose to represent all possible (finite mathematical) cardinalities by only the values 0, 1 and M(any).

1532: 3097: 1654: 1117:

I agree, it would be good to separate the shareware -vs- commericial offerings in two separate subsections in

971:

I doubt that an Entity-relationship model can be called a data model. It is a method to design data models. --

1963: 736:- they are all in different locations, and can be dealt with individually. The Goomba's in this example are 578: 273: 3043: 2969: 2781: 2501: 2187: 2048: 1701: 1692: 1676: 940: 832: 782:

Student, Degree, Degree Subject, Subject, Subject Instance, Course, Course Item, Lecturer, Lecturer Subject.

312: 2029: 1738: 1334: 2461: 2279: 2073: 1742: 334: 163: 2433: 2062:

The overview has recently been updated so the following comments are no longer significant! April 2012

1380:

I've cleaned up the links yet again, removing linkspam and entries that don't have their own articles. --

3112: 3027:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3015: 2855: 2835:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2823: 2390: 2258: 1959: 1920: 1623: 355: 39: 2968:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1410:

Nelson Teixeira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.139.207 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1314: 1082:

section needs a fair bit of work. I've made the correction, but it still needs more work another day.

1047: 422:

So either the terms e. set and r. set should be omitted or a more thorough clarification is in order.

377: 2103:

I will make a note to return and try to fix this in a few weeks, depending on reaction to this entry.

1519: 493:

notation. I encourage you all to post up similar descriptions of the notations you prefer. See also

237: 3078: 3074: 2943: 2914: 2622: 2575: 2493: 2457: 2425: 2250: 2179: 2065: 1955: 1790: 1668: 1646: 1615: 1570: 1524: 1344: 1290: 862:

PS. Sorry, I just realised I'd taken over your section and your original question isn't answered yet.

756: 725: 655: 520: 347: 89: 63: 2429: 844: 768: 764: 760: 744:. As to the term "creep instantiation", of course it's not real, we made it up for the project. ~ 401: 400:

I'm not sure about a relationship having an attribute. How can this convert into a logical model?--

21: 2662: 2642: 2630: 2595: 2110: 1597: 1548: 668: 507: 463:

know there are multiple ways of drawing ER diagrams. I use arrows. Yet the article implies that''''

2472: 593: 3129: 2183: 2044: 2025: 1766: 1746: 1697: 1601: 1185: 1067: 956: 3133: 3101: 3082: 3057: 3012:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2947: 2918: 2904: 2863: 2820:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2735: 2709: 2667: 2647: 2556: 2541: 2526: 2505: 2480: 2465: 2441: 2295: 2266: 2239: 2195: 2146: 2130: 2114: 2093: 2077: 2052: 2037: 2010: 1989: 1971: 1939: 1884:

http://rapidapplicationdevelopment.blogspot.com/2007/06/entity-relationship-diagram-example.html

1872: 1848: 1826: 1705: 1680: 1658: 1631: 1605: 1590: 1574: 1551: 1536: 1505: 1490: 1472: 1452: 1437: 1389: 1373: 1359: 1253: 1236: 1188: 1173: 1153: 1132: 1111: 1096: 1071: 1050: 960: 944: 928: 898: 857: 817: 796: 712: 702: 687: 671: 659: 644: 630: 606: 596: 582: 557: 524: 510: 501: 477: 426: 415: 404: 394: 380: 316: 277: 3028: 2836: 2759: 2476: 1868: 1782: 1587: 1459:

The solution to this problem is to find some inclusion criteria that we can all agree to, per

1356: 1233: 1150: 1129: 1108: 1093: 854: 793: 709: 641: 627: 498: 2851: 2537: 2522: 2254: 1935: 1916: 1619: 1000: 988: 980: 972: 836: 621:

notation. I encourage you all to post up similar descriptions of the notations you prefer.

603: 554: 351: 3035: 2881:

These issues were mentioned by Codd - his article should be referenced and possibly quoted.

2843: 1905:

Now I've confused myself to the extent that I can't decipher the artist-performs-song pic.

1859: 1806: 2939: 2910: 2767: 2275: 2235: 2142: 2089: 1908: 1844: 1798: 1786: 1754: 1566: 1486: 1433: 924: 894: 840: 824: 683: 651: 516: 180: 763:

for a number of us wikipedians here (and for a large number of visitors too). Finding a

1725:

There are lot of ER diagramming tools. Some of the proprietary ER diagramming tools are

1518:

The link to Richard Barker references a page about a Hartlepool FC player Richie Barker

147: 123: 3069: 2994:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2802:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2657: 2637: 2552: 2106: 1810: 1468: 1460: 1448: 1385: 1366: 1318: 1304: 1262:

latest deleted links, calling volunteers to create wikipedia pages for these products:

1214: 545: 474: 210: 3034:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2888: 2842:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1043:

a type of sets of tuples (a table definition - what is actually drawn in a ER-diagram)

3141: 3125: 2934: 2618: 2587: 2021: 1822: 1762: 1758: 1687:

Rationale for removing Information Engineering from database sentence in introduction

1337:: ER Diagram modeller, apparently very good, but the last version is as old as 2005. 1246: 1166: 1063: 952: 916: 828: 814: 699: 446: 1425:

Ok Ronz, I´m kinda new on Knowledge editing. What would be the right way to do it ?

2978:

http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516171832/http://www.cems.uwe.ac.uk/~tdrewry/lds.htm

2900: 2731: 2705: 2291: 2126: 2006: 1985: 1864: 1501: 1298: 1162: 2891:, it becomes clear that this is not the case: correct models for these situations 1898: 3001: 2809: 2533: 2518: 2283: 1931: 1889:

the crow's foot notation for person - location should be the other way around.

1750: 1730: 437: 1208: 1161:

I removed all the external links. It was becoming quite a linkfarm, violating

453:

Agreed. Just for fun: Can we get an ERD of the wiki that wikipedia et al. use?

77: 52: 3000:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2808:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2231: 2138: 2085: 1840: 1482: 1429: 1324: 1294: 1276: 1266: 1217:- a freeware database modeler that also creates SQL DDL code from its drawings 920: 890: 679: 636:

If I have the support of other Wikipedians here, I'd be happy to refactor the

153: 2981: 1696:

it in the Crow's Foot section to replace the wikilink in the introduction. --

2548: 1770: 1734: 1726: 1464: 1444: 1381: 1370: 1250: 1170: 779:

Borrower, Library, Section, Book, Book Category, Category, Loan, Loan Item.

390:

is not very accurate, but then again, what would be a more accurate term?

2782:

http://www.databasedesign.co.uk/bookdatabasesafirstcourse/chap3/chap3.htm

2626: 2591: 1818: 2764:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1348: 1327:: inovative and complete physical modeling tool; Free Edition for MySQL 2896: 2727: 2701: 2353:

And the two asides in parentheses only compound the jargon problem ...

2287: 2122: 2002: 1981: 1802: 1497: 423: 412: 391: 2170:

ER diagram. But after six months, everybody is just hacking as in #1.

1180: 1778: 729: 176: 2693:

There should be a better distinction between ER models (information

1293:: a fork of DBDesigner to make it work with other databases such as 2547:

The tool you like to use has been appropriately removed as spam. --

515:

I am nearly certain it should be "Crow's Foot", not "Crow's Feet".

2772:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1515:

The link to Dr. Chen's paper in the references section is broken.

1280: 1016:

I was consulting this entry in order to learn about how the terms

678:

formalize the ideas and introduce them to an academic audience.

1338: 506:

That's not the classical Crow's Foot notation, it's IDEF1X. --

650:

Except it should be "Crow's Foot", not "Crow's Feet", right?.

213:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

209:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

15: 1328: 1270: 2787:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1897: 1308: 776:

Customer, Sales Rep, Sales Order, Sales Order Item, Product.

236: 1284: 994:

It would be incomplete. As already explained, the ER model

732:'s running around, and they all look the same, but they're 2972:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

445:

wants to change something in the coloring or whatnot... --

1307:: program to draw many kinds of diagram, including ERDs. 2748:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2965: 2753: 1716: 1220: 3148:

Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings

2686:

describe business processes: they describe what can

2383:

what the term 'cardinality' means in E-R models, and

3004:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2812:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1365:While creating these articles, please keep in mind 294:

Der Volks-Brockhaus, F.A. Brockhaus Wiesbaden. 1966

1711:List of linkspam (again) trimmed to a normal size 1197:Here's the external links that were deleted from 2678:The introduction still doesn't make much sense: 2208:the topic, which the article has failed to do. 1395:I have put the folowing text in Ronz talk page: 1269:: inovative and complete physical modeling tool 268:" what is the meaning of 428 BC near his name?" 87:, a project which is currently considered to be 2604: 2569: 2282:(which is what Bachman named his diagrams when 2211:The history below is much better than nothing: 1817:tools. This is not acceptable in Knowledge. -- 1317:: ERM tool distributed with Debian and Ubuntu. 473:Where's the explanation/links about ER 2004? -- 2990:This message was posted before February 2018. 2798:This message was posted before February 2018. 1892:LOCATION has zero-to-many PERSONS born there. 1199:Entity-relationship model#ER diagramming tools 1121:. Do we have a volunteer to figure this out? 8: 1211:- All-in-one ER diagramming and ORM software 740:, while the concept of a Goomba itself is a 494: 264:Aristotle was born in 384 and died in 322 BC 175:, which collaborates on articles related to 2567:Which is preferable for the lead sentence? 2982:http://www.cems.uwe.ac.uk/~tdrewry/lds.htm 2960:I have just modified one external link on 2491: 1203:(refactored - content removed per WP:TALK) 1040:a set of tuples (a table filled with rows) 785:Artist, Album, Album Song, Song, Composer. 118: 47: 2302:Problems with 'Cardinalities' sub-section 1877: 2301: 2028:should probably redirect here as well.-- 1946:Entity Relationship Modelling Principles 1907: 1895:PERSON has one and only one birthplace. 1858:I made another diagram and put it here: 3163:Systems articles in scientific modeling 287: 120: 49: 19: 1037:an individual tuple (a row in a table) 885:I've recently drawn up a few ERDs for 3107:Distinguish between model and diagram 1721:, to the following normal size text: 1406:You me reach me on nt777@hotmail.com 7: 2877:, but it needs further improvement: 245:This article is within the field of 169:This article is within the scope of 83:This article is within the scope of 3088:To be in the relationship for least 2895:exist. This should be made clear. 617:with a diagram and explanation for 615:Alternative diagramming conventions 489:with a diagram and explanation for 487:Alternative diagramming conventions 38:It is of interest to the following 1996:Comparison with UML class diagrams 322:Prevalence of Crow's Foot Notation 211:project-independent quality rating 14: 2964:. Please take a moment to review 2752:. Please take a moment to review 2512:Crows foot notation external link 2230:now very hard to find citations. 2107:Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) 722:The example diagram is not wrong. 371:Common Symbols Section Needs Work 3158:High-importance Systems articles 1886:(not a reliable source, I know) 1878:Crow's foot example - incorrect? 694:THE EXAMPLE DIAGRAM IS WRONG!!!! 613:I have added a section entitled 485:I have added a section entitled 156: 146: 122: 76: 51: 20: 2873:I like the newly added section 1930:The notation looks fine to me. 1102:ER diagramming tools - Linkfarm 755:I think the issue here is that 386:I agree - calling an entity a ' 223:This article has been rated as 99:Knowledge:WikiProject Databases 3083:07:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC) 2506:13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2022:this entry on Encyclopedia.com 961:21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 602:Yes, that is correct. Why? -- 102:Template:WikiProject Databases 1: 3058:16:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) 2948:05:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 2864:05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 1972:17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 1681:15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 1659:02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 1606:14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 1575:06:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 1491:17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 1473:01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 1453:00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 1438:17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 1390:23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1237:13:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1189:18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1174:02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 797:13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 713:13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 660:05:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 645:12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 631:12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 583:19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 525:05:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 502:13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 339:18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 321: 189:Knowledge:WikiProject Systems 3168:WikiProject Systems articles 3153:Start-Class Systems articles 2905:18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) 2456:- Could you elaborate more? 2442:23:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 2147:16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 2131:16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 2115:23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1827:15:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 1506:10:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1260:the (refactored per WP:TALK) 1154:19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 1133:10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 1112:14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 1097:12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 1051:16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 929:12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 899:12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 858:09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 818:18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 703:23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 672:11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 607:21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 597:12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 558:21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 511:11:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 317:08:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 192:Template:WikiProject Systems 3092:To be your lover forever❤️ 2296:22:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 2267:22:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1537:14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 945:21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 303:Third sentence very unclear 3184: 3134:14:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 3102:10:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC) 3021:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2957:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2829:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2770:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2745:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2668:18:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 2648:18:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 2466:05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 2284:he introduced them in 1969 2011:08:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 1990:08:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 1706:09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 1374:19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 1360:15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 1283:databases that uses ERMs. 1254:15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 1221:Xcase database design tool 1072:14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 469:there's only this one way. 229:project's importance scale 3073:have a "key". Tables do. 2962:Entity–relationship model 2750:Entity–relationship model 2736:18:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 2710:12:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC) 2611:entity–relationship model 2580:entity–relationship model 2557:19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 2399:17:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 2240:18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2196:21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 2094:18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2078:18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2053:20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 2016:ER model versus ERA model 1940:03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1925:17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1849:07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1632:04:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 1209:Database Visual ARCHITECT 1057:RDBMS-Schema using a DDL. 1012:relation vs. relationship 983:11:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) 975:13:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) 887:Business Process Modeling 688:07:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 478:12:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 427:12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 416:10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 405:18:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 395:10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 364:02:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 278:13:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 244: 222: 208: 141: 71: 46: 2919:15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC) 2674:Introduction still wrong 2542:21:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2527:20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2334:order (of relationship), 2203:REQUIRES A TOTAL REWRITE 2038:17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1873:17:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1591:12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1552:17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 1415:To which Ronz responded: 1078:You are correct ... the 991:09:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) 833:chief financial officers 548:11:47 15 Oct 2006 {PDT) 449:16:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) 440:03:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) 381:08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 2953:External links modified 2741:External links modified 2563:Lead sentence structure 2481:20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 1693:Information Engineering 1543:Crow feet image problem 1003:13:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) 535:Diagram is not standard 495:Diagram is not standard 2635: 2600: 2370: 2280:Data structure diagram 2001:I add such a section? 1912: 1902: 1423: 1412: 728:. There's a bunch of 241: 164:Systems science portal 28:This article is rated 3113:three-schema_approach 2366: 1911: 1901: 1639:Visio Free software?? 1418: 1397: 1335:Open System Architect 1179:It's a shame because 573:comment was added by 240: 85:WikiProject Databases 3002:regular verification 2935:Crow's Foot Notation 2810:regular verification 2795:to let others know. 2756:. If necessary, add 2623:software engineering 2602:or some thing like: 2576:software engineering 2325:maximum cardinality, 2319:minimum cardinality, 1860:commons:File:Mea.png 1775:Enterprise Architect 1743:DeZign for Databases 1119:ER diagramming tools 915:I totaly agree with 757:Super Mario Brothers 738:Creep Instantiations 726:Super Mario Brothers 457:Diagrams and ER 2004 2992:After February 2018 2889:the referenced text 2800:After February 2018 2791:parameter below to 2631:relational database 2596:relational database 2331:n-ary relationship, 1819:Marcel Douwe Dekker 247:Scientific modeling 172:WikiProject Systems 3122:databases models. 3046:InternetArchiveBot 2997:InternetArchiveBot 2805:InternetArchiveBot 1913: 1903: 1747:MEGA International 497:section below. -- 242: 105:Databases articles 34:content assessment 3022: 2862: 2830: 2508: 2496:comment added by 2445: 2428:comment added by 2349:simple mechanism. 2328:crows foot (sic), 2270: 2253:comment added by 2199: 2182:comment added by 2068:comment added by 2058:Overall Wrongness 1975: 1958:comment added by 1783:Toad Data Modeler 1691:According to the 1671:comment added by 1661: 1649:comment added by 1635: 1618:comment added by 1539: 1527:comment added by 1315:Ferret (software) 1247:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY 1215:Toad Data Modeler 1167:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY 967:Model -vs- Method 837:business analysts 586: 367: 350:comment added by 261: 260: 257: 256: 253: 252: 117: 116: 113: 112: 3175: 3056: 3047: 3020: 3019: 2998: 2875:Modelling issues 2869:Modelling issues 2858: 2857:Talk to my owner 2853: 2828: 2827: 2806: 2771: 2763: 2665: 2660: 2645: 2640: 2444: 2422: 2269: 2247: 2198: 2176: 2080: 2030:Subversive Sound 1974: 1952: 1832:Bachmann diagram 1683: 1644: 1634: 1612: 1522: 1520:User:NigelThomas 1345:POWER*ARCHITECT 841:software testers 825:project managers 734:not the same one 568: 366: 344: 295: 292: 197: 196: 195:Systems articles 193: 190: 187: 166: 161: 160: 159: 150: 143: 142: 137: 134: 126: 119: 107: 106: 103: 100: 97: 80: 73: 72: 67: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3183: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3138: 3137: 3109: 3090: 3065: 3050: 3045: 3013: 3006:have permission 2996: 2970:this simple FaQ 2955: 2931: 2871: 2861: 2856: 2821: 2814:have permission 2804: 2765: 2757: 2743: 2721: 2676: 2663: 2658: 2643: 2638: 2565: 2514: 2451: 2423: 2406: 2340:transformation, 2304: 2276:Bachman diagram 2274:Wait a minute: 2248: 2205: 2177: 2063: 2060: 2018: 1998: 1953: 1948: 1880: 1856: 1854:another diagram 1834: 1799:MySQL Workbench 1791:Visual Paradigm 1787:Microsoft Visio 1755:Oracle Designer 1713: 1689: 1666: 1641: 1613: 1583: 1557:That should be 1545: 1513: 1291:DBDesigner-Fork 1279:: designer for 1104: 1014: 969: 759:is outside the 696: 569:—The preceding 537: 459: 434: 388:discrete object 373: 345: 324: 305: 300: 299: 298: 293: 289: 266: 225:High-importance 194: 191: 188: 185: 184: 181:systems science 162: 157: 155: 136:High‑importance 135: 132: 104: 101: 98: 95: 94: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 3181: 3179: 3171: 3170: 3165: 3160: 3155: 3150: 3140: 3139: 3108: 3105: 3094:41.116.177.176 3089: 3086: 3070:database model 3064: 3061: 3040: 3039: 3032: 2985: 2984: 2976:Added archive 2954: 2951: 2930: 2927: 2922: 2921: 2907: 2885: 2882: 2870: 2867: 2854: 2848: 2847: 2840: 2785: 2784: 2776:Added archive 2742: 2739: 2720: 2713: 2699: 2698: 2691: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2513: 2510: 2450: 2447: 2405: 2402: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2311: 2303: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2243: 2242: 2204: 2201: 2172: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2150: 2149: 2134: 2133: 2097: 2096: 2059: 2056: 2017: 2014: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1879: 1876: 1855: 1852: 1833: 1830: 1814: 1813: 1811:Dia (software) 1794: 1793: 1712: 1709: 1688: 1685: 1665:gliffy.com ? 1664: 1651:138.232.248.27 1640: 1637: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1544: 1541: 1529:212.58.233.129 1512: 1509: 1476: 1475: 1456: 1455: 1407: 1405: 1402: 1394: 1379: 1377: 1376: 1353: 1352: 1342: 1332: 1322: 1312: 1302: 1288: 1274: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1218: 1212: 1192: 1191: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1147: 1136: 1135: 1126: 1122: 1103: 1100: 1092: 1080:Common symbols 1076: 1075: 1074: 1061: 1058: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 968: 965: 964: 963: 932: 931: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 860: 851: 848: 845:problem domain 829:domain experts 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 783: 780: 777: 769:problem domain 765:problem domain 761:problem domain 748: 747: 746: 745: 716: 715: 695: 692: 691: 690: 669:EmmetCaulfield 665: 663: 662: 638:Common symbols 634: 633: 612: 610: 609: 590: 589: 588: 587: 561: 560: 546:User:nickmalik 536: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 513: 508:EmmetCaulfield 458: 455: 451: 450: 433: 430: 419: 418: 398: 397: 372: 369: 323: 320: 304: 301: 297: 296: 286: 285: 281: 265: 262: 259: 258: 255: 254: 251: 250: 243: 233: 232: 221: 215: 214: 207: 201: 200: 198: 168: 167: 151: 139: 138: 127: 115: 114: 111: 110: 108: 81: 69: 68: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3180: 3169: 3166: 3164: 3161: 3159: 3156: 3154: 3151: 3149: 3146: 3145: 3143: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3114: 3106: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3087: 3085: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3071: 3063:Primarky Keys 3062: 3060: 3059: 3054: 3049: 3048: 3037: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3017: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2993: 2988: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2952: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2928: 2926: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2876: 2868: 2866: 2865: 2859: 2852: 2845: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2825: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2801: 2796: 2794: 2790: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2769: 2761: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2740: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2718: 2714: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2696: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2682:ER models do 2681: 2680: 2679: 2673: 2669: 2666: 2661: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2641: 2634: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2603: 2599: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2511: 2509: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498:136.163.203.3 2495: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2448: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2404:Early History 2403: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2184:OsamaBinLogin 2181: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2101: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2057: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2045:OsamaBinLogin 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2015: 2013: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1960:Vortigern one 1957: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1910: 1906: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1885: 1882:According to 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1853: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1831: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1763:Rational Rose 1760: 1759:PowerDesigner 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1720: 1719: 1710: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698:Northernhenge 1694: 1686: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673:137.195.15.10 1670: 1662: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1542: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1510: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1408: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1375: 1372: 1369:. Thanks! -- 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1261: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1101: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1023: 1019: 1011: 1002: 997: 993: 992: 990: 985: 984: 982: 978: 977: 976: 974: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 949: 948: 946: 942: 938: 937:12.199.176.12 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 913: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 861: 859: 856: 852: 849: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 821: 820: 819: 816: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 798: 795: 791: 784: 781: 778: 775: 774: 773: 772: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 720: 719: 718: 717: 714: 711: 707: 706: 705: 704: 701: 693: 689: 685: 681: 676: 675: 674: 673: 670: 661: 657: 653: 649: 648: 647: 646: 643: 639: 632: 629: 624: 623: 622: 620: 616: 608: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 595: 584: 580: 576: 575:74.242.64.129 572: 565: 564: 563: 562: 559: 556: 553:notation. -- 551: 550: 549: 547: 541: 534: 526: 522: 518: 514: 512: 509: 505: 504: 503: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 476: 471: 470: 467: 464: 456: 454: 448: 443: 442: 441: 439: 431: 429: 428: 425: 417: 414: 409: 408: 407: 406: 403: 396: 393: 389: 385: 384: 383: 382: 379: 370: 368: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 341: 340: 336: 332: 328: 319: 318: 314: 310: 302: 291: 288: 284: 280: 279: 275: 271: 270:46.114.104.43 263: 248: 239: 235: 234: 230: 226: 220: 217: 216: 212: 206: 203: 202: 199: 182: 178: 174: 173: 165: 154: 152: 149: 145: 144: 140: 131: 128: 125: 121: 109: 92: 91: 86: 82: 79: 75: 74: 70: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3110: 3091: 3066: 3044: 3041: 3016:source check 2995: 2989: 2986: 2959: 2956: 2933:Is the page 2932: 2923: 2892: 2874: 2872: 2849: 2824:source check 2803: 2797: 2792: 2788: 2786: 2747: 2744: 2724:Entity class 2723: 2722: 2717:entity class 2716: 2700: 2694: 2687: 2683: 2677: 2653: 2636: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2583: 2579: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2530: 2515: 2492:— Preceding 2488: 2484: 2469: 2453: 2452: 2424:— Preceding 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2389: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2352: 2322:optionality, 2313:look-across, 2310:cardinality, 2305: 2249:— Preceding 2244: 2224: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2210: 2206: 2178:— Preceding 2173: 2154: 2151: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2070:208.44.95.13 2064:— Preceding 2061: 2041: 2019: 1999: 1949: 1914: 1904: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1881: 1863: 1857: 1839: 1835: 1815: 1717: 1714: 1690: 1667:— Preceding 1663: 1642: 1614:— Preceding 1609: 1594: 1588:Magdalena B. 1584: 1562: 1558: 1546: 1517: 1514: 1511:Broken Links 1494: 1480: 1477: 1427: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1401: 1399:Hello Ronz, 1398: 1393: 1378: 1357:Matthew 1130 1354: 1259: 1257: 1243: 1234:Matthew 1130 1202: 1160: 1142: 1130:Matthew 1130 1105: 1094:Matthew 1130 1090: 1087: 1084: 1077: 1048:87.162.24.12 1046: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022:relationship 1021: 1017: 1015: 995: 970: 933: 855:Matthew 1130 794:Matthew 1130 741: 737: 733: 721: 710:Matthew 1130 697: 664: 642:Matthew 1130 635: 628:Matthew 1130 618: 611: 591: 542: 538: 499:Matthew 1130 490: 472: 468: 465: 462: 461:As far as I 460: 452: 435: 420: 399: 387: 378:194.221.74.7 374: 346:— Preceding 342: 331:205.173.24.4 329: 325: 309:206.87.81.34 306: 290: 282: 267: 224: 170: 88: 40:WikiProjects 2929:Authorities 2715:What is an 2449:Limitations 2255:Kdf9andtd1a 2026:ERA diagram 1954:—Preceding 1917:Primary key 1767:RISE Editor 1751:OmniGraffle 1731:ConceptDraw 1645:—Preceding 1620:Kdf9andtd1a 1559:Crow's Foot 1523:—Preceding 1001:Jan Hidders 989:Udo Altmann 981:Jan Hidders 973:Udo Altmann 619:Crow's Feet 604:Jan Hidders 555:Jan Hidders 491:Crow's Feet 352:Kdf9andtd1a 133:Start‑class 3142:Categories 3075:Ehsanamini 3053:Report bug 2940:Sam Tomato 2911:Haakondahl 2629:such as a 2619:data model 2594:such as a 2588:data model 2458:Sumdumboot 2346:mechanism, 2343:extension, 2316:same-side, 1567:Sam Tomato 1325:ModelRight 1295:PostgreSQL 1277:DBDesigner 1267:ModelRight 1024:are used. 652:Sam Tomato 517:Sam Tomato 466:Bold text' 283:References 3036:this tool 3029:this tool 2844:this tool 2837:this tool 2430:Djwdjw123 1771:SmartDraw 1735:ER/Studio 1727:Avolution 1581:Beginning 1563:crow feet 1481:Nelson -- 1428:Nelson -- 1258:Here are 1141:Well, ER 921:Guillaume 891:Guillaume 475:Khokkanen 96:Databases 59:Databases 3126:Theking2 3042:Cheers.— 2850:Cheers.— 2760:cbignore 2627:database 2621:used in 2615:ER model 2592:database 2584:ER model 2494:unsigned 2438:contribs 2426:unsigned 2263:contribs 2251:unsigned 2192:contribs 2180:unsigned 2066:unsigned 1968:contribs 1956:unsigned 1773:, Sparx 1669:unsigned 1647:unsigned 1628:contribs 1616:unsigned 1598:Bizerk44 1549:Bencoder 1525:unsigned 1181:this one 1091:Thanks, 1064:Theking2 1018:relation 953:Epachamo 917:Epachamo 815:Epachamo 700:Epachamo 571:unsigned 447:BigSmoke 360:contribs 348:unsigned 90:inactive 64:inactive 2966:my edit 2860::Online 2789:checked 2754:my edit 2695:schemas 2617:) is a 2586:) is a 2473:Rszrama 2337:degree, 1865:Wooptoo 1803:StarUML 1461:WP:LIST 1367:WP:CORP 1125:belong? 594:Jam2001 432:Symbols 227:on the 186:Systems 177:systems 130:Systems 30:C-class 2768:nobots 2534:Bhanks 2519:Bhanks 1932:Libcub 1789:, and 1779:SQLyog 1561:, not 1186:Wizgha 730:Goomba 438:Eirikr 36:scale. 2664:lozzo 2644:lozzo 2578:, an 2232:Mhkay 2139:Mhkay 2086:Mhkay 1841:Mhkay 1807:Kivio 1739:ERwin 1483:Nt777 1430:Nt777 1421:(UTC) 1281:MySQL 1163:WP:EL 742:Creep 680:Mhkay 205:Start 3130:talk 3098:talk 3079:talk 2944:talk 2915:talk 2901:talk 2793:true 2732:talk 2706:talk 2659:Joja 2639:Joja 2553:talk 2549:Ronz 2538:talk 2523:talk 2502:talk 2477:talk 2462:talk 2434:talk 2395:talk 2391:yoyo 2292:talk 2278:and 2259:talk 2236:talk 2188:talk 2143:talk 2127:talk 2111:talk 2090:talk 2074:talk 2049:talk 2034:talk 2007:talk 1986:talk 1964:talk 1936:talk 1921:talk 1869:talk 1845:talk 1823:talk 1809:and 1801:and 1718:here 1702:talk 1677:talk 1655:talk 1624:talk 1602:talk 1571:talk 1533:talk 1502:talk 1487:talk 1469:talk 1465:Ronz 1449:talk 1445:Ronz 1434:talk 1386:talk 1382:Ronz 1371:Ronz 1349:Site 1339:Site 1329:Site 1319:Site 1309:Site 1299:Site 1285:Site 1271:Site 1251:Ronz 1249:. -- 1171:Ronz 1169:. -- 1165:and 1146:you. 1068:talk 1020:vs. 957:talk 941:talk 925:talk 895:talk 839:and 684:talk 656:talk 579:talk 521:talk 402:Nick 356:talk 335:talk 313:talk 274:talk 219:High 179:and 3010:RfC 2980:to 2818:RfC 2780:to 2684:not 2609:An 2574:In 1761:, 1355:-- 1305:Dia 1151:ThG 1128:-- 1109:ThG 853:-- 792:-- 3144:: 3132:) 3100:) 3081:) 3023:. 3018:}} 3014:{{ 2946:) 2917:) 2903:) 2897:Rp 2893:do 2831:. 2826:}} 2822:{{ 2766:{{ 2762:}} 2758:{{ 2734:) 2728:Rp 2708:) 2702:Rp 2688:be 2654:B. 2607:B. 2572:A. 2555:) 2540:) 2525:) 2504:) 2479:) 2464:) 2440:) 2436:• 2397:) 2294:) 2288:Rp 2265:) 2261:• 2238:) 2194:) 2190:• 2145:) 2129:) 2123:Rp 2113:) 2092:) 2076:) 2051:) 2036:) 2009:) 2003:Rp 1988:) 1982:Rp 1970:) 1966:• 1938:) 1923:) 1871:) 1847:) 1825:) 1785:, 1781:, 1777:, 1769:, 1765:, 1757:, 1753:, 1749:, 1745:, 1741:, 1737:, 1733:, 1729:, 1704:) 1679:) 1657:) 1630:) 1626:• 1604:) 1573:) 1565:. 1535:) 1504:) 1498:Rp 1489:) 1471:) 1451:) 1436:) 1388:) 1297:. 1205:: 1184:-- 1149:-- 1143:is 1107:-- 1070:) 996:is 959:) 947:) 943:) 927:) 897:) 835:, 831:, 827:, 771:: 686:) 658:) 581:) 523:) 424:Rp 413:Rp 392:Rp 362:) 358:• 337:) 315:) 276:) 3128:( 3096:( 3077:( 3055:) 3051:( 3038:. 3031:. 2942:( 2913:( 2899:( 2846:. 2839:. 2730:( 2719:? 2704:( 2633:. 2613:( 2598:. 2582:( 2551:( 2536:( 2521:( 2500:( 2475:( 2460:( 2432:( 2393:( 2290:( 2257:( 2234:( 2186:( 2141:( 2125:( 2109:( 2088:( 2072:( 2047:( 2032:( 2005:( 1984:( 1962:( 1934:( 1919:( 1867:( 1843:( 1821:( 1700:( 1675:( 1653:( 1622:( 1600:( 1569:( 1531:( 1500:( 1485:( 1467:( 1447:( 1432:( 1384:( 1351:. 1341:. 1331:. 1321:. 1311:. 1301:. 1287:. 1273:. 1066:( 955:( 939:( 935:( 923:( 893:( 682:( 654:( 585:. 577:( 519:( 354:( 333:( 311:( 272:( 249:. 231:. 183:. 93:. 66:) 62:( 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index