|
School of Accountancy and Information Systems Marriott School of Management Brigham Young University 540 TRNB, BYU Provo, UT 84602-3068 USA
|
Stephen W. Clyde (Utah State University, USA) Stephen W. Liddle (Brigham Young University, USA) (chair) Scott N. Woodfield (Brigham Young University, USA) |
| Important Dates | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conceptual models are not just for databases any more. From its genesis in data modeling, the field of conceptual modeling has broadened to include behavioral constructs. The advent of technologies such as object orientation, active databases, triggers in relational databases, and so-called "universal" DBMS (to name just a few) has placed greater emphasis on the need to model behavioral aspects of systems, in addition to structural aspects. The literature reflects an increasing interest in conceptual models that cover both system structure and system behavior.
The problem of how to design a database system based on a semantic data model is well understood. The focus of traditional design is on issues such as constraint satisfaction, information redundancy, access times, etc. We apply well-studied information-preserving transformations (such as normalization or denormalization) to arrive at a database with the characteristics we desire. However, when we add behavior to the conceptual model, we introduce additional design challenges that are less well understood, such as controlling the amount of concurrency, optimizing communications between active components, ensuring correct synchronization of active components, satisfying real-time constraints, etc.
Researchers are devoting increasingly more energy to the problems of behavioral modeling in conjunction with traditional conceptual data modeling. Behavioral modeling is not new, but its tighter integration with traditional conceptual modeling has opened new questions and opportunities. ER'97 provides an ideal forum for gathering interested researchers to discuss challenges and progress, and to share ideas in this important area.
The goal of this workshop is to better understand theoretical aspects of behavioral models and use that understanding to suggest transformations that would be helpful in the design of active systems. To this end, we will explore two major questions:
| 1. | What constitutes a "good" behavioral model? |
| 2. | Given a "good" behavioral model, what issues related to design transformations should we explore so that our understanding of behavioral design will be as good as our understanding of more traditional structural design? |
Some topics related to question 1 include:
| What are the essential characteristics of a behavioral model? | ||
| | How close to the "real world" must a behavioral model be? | |
| | Is intra-object concurrency necessary or desirable? | |
| | Should the basic unit of behavioral transition be instantaneous? | |
| | etc. | |
| How do we formally compare different behavioral models? | ||
| | How do we measure power in a behavioral model? | |
| | Is computational completeness adequate? | |
| | When does one model subsume another? | |
| | Is a formal definition necessary or desirable? | |
| | Are there issues of notational expressiveness we should consider? | |
Some topics related to question 2 include:
| What are the desirable properties of a behavioral model design? | ||
| Are there useful canonical/normal forms for behavioral models? | ||
| Can we identify any meaningful behavior patterns that seem to recur frequently? | ||
| How do we measure quality in a behavioral model? | ||
| How do interface definitions impact the quality of a behavioral model? | ||
| What design transformations are necessary or desirable? | ||
| How do we guarantee information preservation in our transformations? | ||
| Should behavioral design be independent of the implementation platform? | ||
| | Are there useful design transformations that are platform independent? | |
| | Are there useful design transformations that are platform dependent? | |
| | Should design assume complete independence from the eventual implementation platform, should it be totally dependent on the platform, or should we use something in between? | |
| How does the inclusion of behavior in the conceptual model impact structural aspects of the model? | ||
| | Are there subtle interactions between structural and behavioral constructs that we need to consider? | |
| | Are the transformations used in the absence of behavioral constructs still information-preserving and otherwise effective in the presence of behavioral constructs? | |
| How do designers know when a particular design is "done"? Can this question only be answered on a project-by-project basis, or even worse, must it be answered on a module-by-module basis? | ||
These lists are not intended to be comprehensive. However, this workshop will focus on conceptual modeling and design issues, and not on implementation method or methodology issues. Questions related to actual implementation of behavioral designs are outside the scope of this workshop.
Researchers interested in participating in the workshop may submit either a full paper (maximum 5,000 words) describing completed research, or a 1-3 page position statement describing their interest in the workshop theme. Submissions should be sent as e-mail attachments (PostScript files, Word documents, or WordPerfect documents), or three printed copies, to the workshop chair.
Submissions should include email and postal addresses of contact authors, and must be received by July 31, 1997. If you need a bit more time, send an e-mail to the workshop chair.
Potential participants are encouraged to email the workshop chair to discuss the suitability of specific research projects to the workshop theme.
Workshop participants must register for the ER'97 conference and pay an additional $50 workshop fee.
A copy of the workshop proceedings will be made available to all participants.
Sponsored ByThe ER Institute In Cooperation WithACM/ SIGMOD More Information
| ![]() |