Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

RESEARCH NOTE

A RESEARCH NOTE ON REPRESENTING PARTWHOLE RELATIONS IN CONCEPTUAL MODELING1


Gove N. Allen
Marriot School of Management, Brigham Young University, 783 Tanner Building, Provo, UT 84602 U.S.A. {gove@byu.edu}

Salvatore T. March
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203 U.S.A. {sal.march@owen.vanderbilt.edu}

Empirical research is an important methodology for the study of conceptual modeling practices. The recently published article Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Modeling: An Empirical Evaluation (Shanks et al. 2008) uses the lens of ontology to study a relatively sophisticated aspect of conceptual modeling practice, the representation of aggregation and composition. It contends that some analysts argue that a composite should be represented as a relationship while others argue that a composite should be represented as an entity. We find no evidence of such a dispute in the data modeling literature. We observe that composites are objects. By definition, all object-types should be represented as entities. Therefore, using the relationship construct to represent composites should not be seen as a viable alternative. Additionally, we found significant conceptual and methodological issues within the study that call its conclusions into question. As a way to offer insight into the requisite methodological procedures for research in this area, we conducted two experiments that both explicate and address the issues raised. Our results call into question the utility of using ontology as a foundation for conceptual modeling practice. Furthermore, they suggest a contrary but at least equally plausible explanation for the results reported by Shanks et al. In conducting this work we hope to encourage dialogue that will be beneficial for future endeavors aimed at identifying, developing, and evaluating appropriate foundations for the discipline of conceptual modeling. Keywords: Conceptual modeling, empirical research, ontology, information systems development, composition, UML, entityrelationship model

Introduction1
Academic research in the field of information systems has long been interested in examining the relationship between conceptual models (grammars, methods, and scripts) and
1 Dale L. Goodhue was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Sandeep Purao served as the associate editor.

The appendices for this paper are located in the Online Supplements section of the MIS Quarterlys website (http://www.misq.org).

human performance in tasks related to information system development and use (Batra et al. 1990; Bodart et al. 2001; Burton-Jones and Meso 2006; Kim and March 1995). One important question deals with identifying a sound theoretical basis for the development and assessment of conceptual modeling grammars and practices (Wand and Weber 2002). Bunges (1977) ontology has been suggested as such a theoretical basis (Wand et al. 1995; Wand et al. 1999; Wand and Weber 1993). Several articles have reported experiments that study the effects of conformance to Bunges ontology on human performance in various tasks (Bodart et al. 2001;

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 945-964/September 2012

945

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Bowen et al. 2006, 2009; Gemino and Wand 2005; Shanks et al. 2008. Establishing that a specific ontological foundation consistently leads to superior human performance in conceptual modeling tasks would be a significant contribution to our field. Shanks et al. (2008) draw this conclusion, contending that our results add strength to a growing body of empirical work that supports the usefulness of ontological theories, especially Bunges (1977) theory, as a means of predicting the strengths and weaknesses of conceptual modeling models and practices (p. 570). However, we found a number of apparent problems with the Shanks et al. study, in both its conceptual underpinnings and in the execution of the empirical tests that cast considerable doubt on such a conclusion. Articles in MIS Quarterly are often the starting point for further research. Because reliance on results with problematic conceptualization and methodology will have detrimental effects on the development of a cumulative research tradition within the discipline (Straub 2008), we feel it is important to discuss these problems, to recast and retest the assertions of Shanks et al., and to provide an exemplar of careful work in this difficult area of research. While we focus on what we see as critical concerns with the study reported by Shanks et al., it is important to note the significant contributions of the work. First, this is among a very small number of studies aimed at empirically testing the utility of a well-established philosophical ontology as the basis for conceptual modeling. Empirical studies of this nature are crucial. Second, it presents an innovate framework for data analysis that combines a quantitative assessment of subjects answers with a qualitative assessment of explanations for their answers and their interpretations of the modeled domain. It presents a detailed description of procedures used in this qualitative data analysis. Analysis and categorization of verbal protocols is a difficult and time-consuming process, but one that can yield significant insight into subjects reasoning processes. In undertaking this work, our intent is to encourage dialogue that will be beneficial for future endeavors as our field works toward identifying, developing, and evaluating appropriate foundations for the discipline of conceptual modeling. We identify and explicate two concerns with respect to the conceptualization and five with respect to the execution (methodology) of the study presented in Shanks et al. Further, we

conducted two experiments that validate our concerns and demonstrate how such research should be conducted. With respect to conceptualization, we have two fundamental concerns. First, the study is structured as an empirical evaluation of alternative conceptual-modeling representations of partwhole relations (p. 554) contending that, in practice, some analysts argue [that] composites should be represented as a relationship (p. 553) rather than as entities.2 We find no support for this contention in the literature. Composition is a relatively sophisticated construct available in the Unified Modeling Language (UML). It is used when a modeler deems it important to represent the fact that a relationship has a specialized meaning, that is, the association of part objects that constitute a composite object as opposed to a simple association (Fowler 2003). Representing the composite object itself as a relationship violates the basic definitions of the UML and generally accepted conceptual modeling practice (Carlis and Maguire 2001; Keet 2008; Kent 1978). Second, and more importantly, the study appeals to Bunges ontology as the theoretical foundation for predicting differences in human performance; but it does not conform to Bunges ontology in the conceptualization or design of the experiment. The experiment uses two conceptual models (diagrams). The first, termed ontologically clear, is argued to be consistent with Bunges ontology with respect to the representation of composite objects. The second, termed ontologically unclear, is argued to be inconsistent with Bunges ontology in this respect. The underlying proposition is that the ontologically clear model will result in superior user performance over the ontologically unclear model because of its conformance to Bunges ontology. However, upon close scrutiny and as discussed in detail below, neither of these models conforms to Bunges ontology with respect to the definition of composite objects. We have five concerns with respect to the studys execution. First, it does not successfully operationalize the independent variable, ontological clarity. Appealing to the theory of ontological clarity (Wand and Weber 1993), the study contends that the ontologically unclear model lacks ontological clarity because it exhibits construct overload. Specifically, it contends that the UML relationship construct is used to explicitly represent associations and to implicitly represent composites (Shanks et al. 2008, p. 561). Association and composition are two distinct ontological constructs; however,
2

Although the precise terms for the diamonds and rectangles in an ER diagram are relationship types and entity types, to be consistent with Shanks et al. and for ease in reading, we will refer to them as relationships and entities. We will use the terms relationship instance and entity instance to refer to members of those sets represented in a diagram.

946

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

UML has two graphical symbols to represent relationships: a labeled arc and a diamond (Rumbaugh et al. 2005). The ontologically unclear model exclusively uses labeled arcs to explicitly represent association relationships and exclusively uses diamonds to implicitly represent composite objects. Thus it does not overload either graphical symbol. Second is a concern with the development of the experimental materials. The study describes a procedure for generating the ontologically unclear model from the ontologically clear model by transforming composites into ternary relationships intended to implicitly represent those composites. It does not, however, follow that procedure. As a result there is an inconsistent mapping between the models with respect to the representation of composite objects. Furthermore, the ternary relationships in the ontologically unclear model need not be interpreted as representing composites at all. They are more reasonably interpreted as representing relationships. Third is a concern that the treatments are confounded. The ontologically unclear model uses binary and ternary relationships while the ontologically clear model uses only binary relationships. The semantics of ternary relationships are significantly more difficult to understand than are the semantics of binary relationships, especially for novice users (Topi and Ramesh 2002). Inclusion of ternary relationships in the ontologically unclear treatment but not in the ontologically clear treatment represents a substantial confound, making it impossible to determine the source of observed performance differences. We examine the strength of this confound in our first experiment. Moreover the questions that make up the experimental task systematically favor the ontologically clear diagram in a manner that is independent from the experimental treatment, further strengthening the confounding effects. Fourth is a concern that subjects were instructed that the diagrams they were asked to interpret were standard UML diagrams; however, the instructions they were given about interpreting the diagrams were not consistent with the definitions of the UML constructs used, specifically with respect to the definitions of ternary relationship constraints. Although this may not be a concern for novices who are unfamiliar with UML, many of the subjects had modeling experience and a number had explicit experience with UML. Such subjects likely experienced cognitive dissonance with respect to the nonstandard definitions. Fifth is a concern with the analysis of participants performance. Correct responses are reported for only two of the questions used in the experimental task. In one of these questions, subjects answers were incorrectly scored for one of the experimental treatments.

Each of these concerns is assessed and explained in the following sections. Our goal in this endeavor is to sharpen the understanding of researchers with respect to the difficulty and the care required in working in this challenging but important area of inquiry. We hope to encourage future research in the development and evaluation of appropriate theoretical underpinnings for conceptual modeling and to help improve the conceptualization and execution of empirical research in this area. Moreover, we seek to open a dialog among researchers in developing and using appropriate theoretical foundations for conceptual modeling and in developing and using appropriate experimental protocols in conceptual modeling research.

Foundations in Conceptual Modeling Practice


Shanks et al. base their study on the contention that in conceptual models composite things are sometimes represented as entities (classes) and sometimes represented via relationships (associations) between the components of the composite (p. 554). However, doing so violates the basic definitions of both the entityrelationship (ER) grammar (Chen 1976) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) grammar (Rumbaugh et al. 2005). In both grammars, entities (classes) are defined to represent collections of objects (instances) and relationships are defined to represent collections of associations among objects. An instance of a relationship is the association of one instance of each related entity. However, the definitions of conceptual modeling grammars and the way in which those grammars are appropriated in practice may vary widely (Feldman and Pentland 2003). The study presented by Shanks et al. would be important if, indeed, a significant proportion of analysts argue composites should be represented as a relationship or association (p. 553), independent of the fact that doing so violates the definition of the relationship construct. Shanks et al. contend that widely used conceptual modeling/database textbooks, including Elmasri and Navathe (2004) and Teorey et al. (2006), show a composite represented implicitly via a relationship or association construct (p. 555). We disagree with this interpretation of the conceptual models presented in these textbooks, as do the authors of these textbooks.3 The strength of a conceptual model is that domain semantics are represented explicitly. As discussed above, the entities in a conceptual model represent collections, or types of objects; the
3

Personal communications with the authors of these textbooks between May 12, 2008, and June 30, 2008.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

947

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

relationships represent collections or types of associations among them; object types not explicitly represented are not part of the conceptual model (Carlis and Maguire 2001). Figures 1 and 2 are the examples used by Shanks et al. to motivate their study. A detailed description of the syntax used in Figure 1 is found in Appendix A, Section 1; a detailed description of the syntax used in Figure 2 is found in Appendix A, Section 5. Figure 1 is a portion of a conceptual model taken from Elmasri and Navathe (2004, p. 102). It shows a committee relationship between a faculty member and a graduate student. Shanks et al. argue that a composite entity committee is represented implicitly by the so labeled diamond. They argue that Elmasri and Navathe clearly intend the committee to be a composite entity that has faculty entities and student entities as components (p. 555). While readers of a conceptual modeling diagram will use their existing domain knowledge to make sense of a diagram, if the designer of a diagram intends to convey some meaning, it should be done explicitly rather than implicitly (Carlis and Maguire 2001). Our interpretation of the diagram is that the committee relationship indicates that there is an association between individual graduate students and individual faculty members by virtue of their mutual participation in a committee, even though the committee itself is not represented in the model. If Elmasri and Navathe intended to represent the committee object they would have done so using an entity. The label committee on the relationship simply stands in place of another, potentially more descriptive label such as advises/ is advised by representing the role played by each entity in the relationship. This interpretation is more consistent with the way in which graduate committees are typically conceptualized. That is, an instance of the committee relationship indicates that a faculty member participates in a committee that advises a student; only faculty members can be members of a committee; the graduate student is not a member of (or any other kind of component of) a committee. Furthermore, a relationship instance is defined and identified by the combination of the related entity instances (Elmasri and Navathe 2004). Hence, a committee relationship instance, as represented in Figure1, has exactly one faculty member and exactly one graduate student. The cardinality constraints, M and N in the diagram, indicate that one faculty member may be associated with many graduate students and one graduate student may be associated with many faculty members. Using the name committee for the relationship may evoke reasoning processes related to academic committee objects with which the reader is familiar; however, all that can be known from the diagram is that faculty members and graduate students are associated with each other and that committee

is deemed an appropriate, although potentially misleading, name for that relationship. If the common meaning of academic committees is assumed (i.e., each student has one committee and each faculty member can serve on many committees), then Figure 1 does allow for reasoning about committees. The members of a students committee are those faculty members associated with that student through the committee relationship; however, the committee itself is not represented in the diagram. Shanks et al. use a second motivating example (Figure 2), reproduced from Teorey et al. (2006, p. 91), and describe it as follows: Engineers are divided into groups for certain projects. Each group has a leader. By this, Shanks et al. contend that the association with the aggregation symbol in Figure 2 implicitly represents a group composite that has engineers as components (p. 555). Here the use of the language divided into groups may suggest that groups are composite entities made up of engineers; however, that composite is not represented in the diagram. The relationship shows that some engineers are related to others by virtue of either being a group leader of other engineers or being led by another engineer who is a group leader. Moreover, the purpose of that figure is not to explicate the semantics of composition but rather to illustrate rules for transforming recursive one-to-many relationships into SQL for implementation (Teorey et al. 2006). The use of the diamond was not intended to represent a composition (aggregation) relationship, but rather an association relationship as in the corresponding ER diagram from the prior page in the textbook. If the intention were to implicitly represent an aggregation relationship as Shanks et al. contend, then the interpretation would be as follows: The UML notation for aggregation (the open diamond at one end of an association arc) indicates that members of the class touching the diamond are composed of members of the class at the other end of the association arc. Thus the semantics of the diagram do not indicate that groups are composed of engineers; rather they indicate that engineers are composed of engineers. This is neither congruent with the English language understanding of what an engineer is nor is it valid UML syntax. The UML does not allow aggregation hierarchies to be circular as in the recursive relationship of Figure 2; an object may not directly or indirectly be a part of itself (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 164). Hence, Figure 2 cannot be interpreted to implicitly represent any composite.4
4

In a personal communication on June 10, 2008, Tom Nadeau (Teorey et al.) confirmed that the intended meaning of the diagram was simple association, not aggregation. He also confirmed that if the group composite object were to be modeled, an entity would have been used to explicitly represent it.

948

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

FACULTY

M
COMMITTEE

Engineer

0..*

1
N
GRAD-STUDENT

is-led-by

is-group-leader-of

Figure 1. Portion of an ER Diagram that Shanks et al. Argue Uses a Relationship to Implicitly Represent a Committee Object (Source: Elmasri/
Navathe FUNDAMENTALS OF DATABASE SYSTEMS, p. 102, Figure 4.9, An EER Schema for a University Database, 2007, 2004 Shamkant B. Navanthe & Ramez A. Elmasri. Reproduced by permission Pearson Education, Inc.)

Figure 2. Portion of a UML Diagram that Shanks et al. Argue Uses an Association to Implicitly Represent a Composite Group Object (Source:
Database Modeling and Design: Logical Design (4th ed.), T. Teory, S. Lightstone, and T. Nadeau, p. 91. Copyright 2006, Elsevier)

Therefore, neither of these textbook examples uses the relationship construct to represent composites; in both examples the relationship construct represents association. Thus neither example serves as support for the claim that some textbook authors use relationships to represent composition. As discussed above, such a claim is inconsistent with the definitions of both the ER and the UML grammars. Two related concepts have been discussed in the conceptual modeling literature, reification and association classes (Elmasri and Navathe 2004; Halpin and Morgan 2008; Hansen and Hansen 1996; Rumbaugh et al. 2005). Reification, also termed objectification, refers to a process of transforming phenomena initially represented as a relationship into an entity or class. Association classes combine the properties of entities and relationships into a single construct. Neither, however, infers that an ordinary relationship can or should be used to represent a composite entity. In fact, these constructs were introduced because the relationship construct alone is insufficient to express phenomena that have characteristics of both entities and relationships, specifically the ability to participate in additional relationships. Finally, Shanks et al. use ternary relationships in the ontologically unclear treatment. A ternary relationship associates three entities. As with any relationship, an instance of a ternary relationship associates exactly one instance of each of the related entities. However, the semantics of ternary rela-

tionship constraints are complex and frequently misunderstood (Topi and Ramesh 2002). Furthermore, there are significant differences in the definitions of ternary relationship cardinality constraints between UML and a number of extended ER model proposals. Rather than using UML, Shanks et al. use one of these extended ER proposals in the ontologically unclear treatment. Details of the relevant definitions are presented in Appendix A.

Theoretical Foundations
Shanks et al. indicate that they are testing the theory of ontological clarity posed by Wand and Weber (1993). This theory asserts that when the constructs of a conceptual modeling grammar exist in a bijective correspondence with the constructs of an ontology, scripts expressed in that grammar will better communicate meaning to users than will scripts formed using grammars with ontological mappings that are either surjective or injective in either direction. In a bijective correspondence, each construct in the conceptual modeling grammar maps to exactly one construct in the ontology and each construct in the ontology maps to exactly one construct in the grammar. In a surjective correspondence, multiple constructs in the conceptual modeling grammar map to the same construct in the ontology or multiple constructs in the ontology map to the same construct in the conceptual modeling gram-

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

949

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

mar. In an injective correspondence, there may be constructs in the conceptual modeling grammar that have no corresponding construct in the ontology or constructs in the ontology that have no corresponding construct in the ontology. The specific aspect of ontological clarity tested by Shanks et al. is the existence of a surjective correspondence where one construct in a conceptual modeling grammar is used to represent multiple constructs in an ontology. This type of surjective relationship is commonly termed construct overload (Burton-Jones et al. 2009). The authors select the ontology of Mario Bunge (1977) as the referent ontology for their study. This presents problems for conceptual modeling because Bunges ontology is intended to represent concrete objects (things) that possess substantial properties. Concrete objects exist objectively in space and time, independent of human interpretation and ascription of meaning. Conceptual models, however, must frequently represent conceptual objects and attributes that exist subjectively, are based exclusively on human interpretation, beliefs and collective agreement, and convey ascribed meaning (Kent 1978; Searle 1995, 2006). These are explicitly excluded from Bunges ontology (Allen and March 2006a; Wyssusek 2006). In this regard Wand et al. (1999) deviate from Bunges ontology by asserting that the notion of a concrete thing applies to anything perceived as a specific object by someone, whether it exists in physical reality or only in someones mind (p. 497). In our opinion, this deviation severely reduces any guidance a modeler would obtain from Bunges ontology in the identification and classification of phenomena to be represented in a conceptual model. In this deviation, phenomena are represented as the modeler perceives to be appropriate, not as they exist in what Bunge (p. 157) calls real existence. A complete assessment of Bunges ontology as a foundation for conceptual modeling is beyond the scope of this paper and is the subject of ongoing research activities. Hence, we restrict our discussion to the ontological issues surrounding the diagrams used in the experimental treatments.

itself and the null individual. The composite Team violates this definition because it permits a Team to be composed of one Team Leader and a minimum of zero Team Members. That is, a Team Leader composed with no individuals other than itself (i.e., having no team members) is represented to be a Team. In Bunges ontology, a Team Leader composed with no other individual is the Team Leader, not a Team. Thus defining a team as the composition of a leader and some number of members but specifying that a team can exist without any members violates Bunges definition of composition. It is ontologically equivalent to defining a water molecule as being composed of oxygen and hydrogen but specifying that a water molecule can exist without any hydrogen. This violation could have been eliminated by specifying that a team requires a team leader and at least one member. Similar violations exist in the definitions of Project and Project Plana Project can be composed of zero Phases (i.e., composed of nothing); a Project Plan can be composed of zero Budgets and zero Scopes (i.e., composed of nothing). Although Purchase Requisition requires its component parts, the parts cannot exist without the whole, as indicated by the use of the solid diamond. In Bunges ontology, nothing is created or destroyed; composite concrete objects are composed from existing concrete objects (p. 35). The components of a composite must have independent existence from the composite itself. Thus the ontologically clear conceptual model is not consistent with Bunges ontological definition of reality. To be consistent with Bunges ontology, each part must have existence prior to being composed. Hence, we conclude that Team, Project, Project Plan, and Purchase Requisition as represented in the ontologically clear diagram are not composites as defined by Bunges ontology. Finally, although the ontologically unclear diagram (Figure 4) is purported to violate Bunges ontology because it uses ternary relationships to implicitly represent composites, it need not be interpreted as representing composites at all (see Appendix A for a detailed review of the syntax used in Figure 4). It is wholly consistent with the predominant application of Bunges ontology to conceptual modeling to view these ternary relationships as representing mutual properties of distinct things rather than as representing composites (Wand et al. 1999). Thus the ternary relationships in the ontologically unclear diagram need not be interpreted as a departure from ontological clarity. Given these problems with the instantiation of ontological concepts in the ontologically clear and ontologically unclear treatments (Figures 3 and 4, respectively), we argue that no conclusions should be drawn from this study regarding the suitability of Bunges ontology as a foundation for conceptual modeling.

Problems with the Experimental Treatments


Bunges definition of a composite is quite different from the notion of composition in the UML. None of the composites in the ontologically clear UML diagram (Figure 3) conforms to the definition of composition in Bunges ontology. Appendix A contains a detailed review of the syntax used in Figure 3. Bunge (p. 29) states that an individual is composite [if and only if] it is composed of individuals other than

950

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

UML Class Diagram 1 "ET Technologies" Client - Client # - Address - Contact Phone # - Budget # - Budget Description - Budget Version #

0..1 Requests 0..* 0..* Team Responsible For - Team # - Team Name - Team Size 1..* - Date Formed 0..* Team Member 0..* Phase 0..* Require 0..* Consumable 1 Ordered Via 0..* Project 1 - Project # - Project Description - Required Completion Date - Actual Completion Date 1 Has 0..* Project Plan 1 - Project Plan # - Project Plan Version # 1

0..1

Budget

1..* 1 Team Leader

0..1

Scope

- Scope # - Scope Description - Scope Version #

- Quantity 0..*

- Purchase Header # - Date of Requisition - Total Value of Requisition Requisition Header 1

Requisition Line 1..*

Employee

0..* Belong To 1 Department

- Employee # - Employee Name - DOB - Internal Phone # - Skill Level - Qualification Level

1 - Phase # - Phase Description - Phase Goal - Work Hours Required - Priority Level Assigned To

- Consumable # - Consumable Description

Purchase Requisition 1..* Sent to

1 - Purchase Requisition #

0..* Key Deliverable - Deliverable # - Deliverable Name - Date Due

1 Supplier

- Department # - Department Name

- Supplier # - Supplier Name - ABN - ACN - Address - Contact Phone #

Figure 3. Experimental Materials, Ontologically Clear Diagram (Source: Figure 5 from Shanks et al. 2008, p. 561)

Construct Operationalization
As discussed above, the theory of ontological clarity predicts that users of conceptual models will better understand the domain semantics represented by the diagrams when there is a bijective mapping between constructs in the modeling grammar and constructs in the ontology than when there is a surjective or injective mapping between them. When a bijective mapping exists in a given diagram, the diagram is said to be ontologically clear. Shanks et al. argue that using the relationship construct to represent both associations among objects and to implicitly represent composite objects results in construct overload, a surjective mapping from the ontology to the conceptual model. While we agree that using the same construct to represent both associations and composite objects would result in construct overload, the study does not permit such an

assessment. In each experimental treatment, associations are represented with one graphical symbol while objects are represented with another. That is, with respect to the representation of association and composite objects there is no construct overload in either treatment. In the ontologically clear diagram (Figure 3), objects are represented using the rectangular class symbol, association relationships are represented using labeled arcs, and aggregation/composition relationships are represented using small diamonds on the composite object side of the relationship. Shanks et al. state that the ontologically unclear diagram (Figure 4) was produced from the ontologically clear diagram by converting each aggregate/composite class to a diamond, that is, a UML association (p. 561). On the surface, this appears to operationalize different levels of ontological clarity by creating construct overload; the relationship construct is intended to convey two different meanings.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

951

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

UML Class Diagram 2 "ET Technologies" - Client # - Address - Contact Phone #

Client

0..1 Requests 0..* 0..* 0..* 1 Budget

- Budget # - Budget Description - Budget Version #

Project

Project Plan - Scope # - Scope Description - Scope Version #

Team 1..* 1..* Team Member

0..* - Project # - Project Description - Required Completion Date - Actual Completion Date

Scope

Team Leader

- Consumable Type # - Quantity - Employee # - Employee Name - DOB - Internal Phone # - Skill Level - Qualification Level 0..* 1 0..*

- Purchase Header # - Date of Requisition - Total Value of Requisition

Phase

Consumable

Ordered Via

Requisition Line

Requisition Header

Employee

0..* Belong To 1

- Consumable # - Consumable Description 0..* Key Deliverable - Deliverable # - Deliverable Name - Date Due

1..* Purchase Requisition

Department

- Department # - Department Name

1..* Supplier

- Supplier # - Supplier Name - ABN - ACN - Address - Contact Phone #

Figure 4. Experimental Materials, Ontologically Unclear Diagram (Source: Figure 6 from Shanks et al. p. 562)

However, in UML a diamond is defined to represent an association, not a composite object. Hence, the diamonds in Figure 4 should be interpreted as representing ternary relationships (associations), even though the authors intend them to communicate the existence of composite objects. More importantly, all and only ternary relationships intended to communicate the existence of composites are represented using the diamond symbol. All binary relationships (associations) are represented using labeled arcs. Consequently we see no construct overload in Figure 4; rectangles are used to represent objects; labeled arcs are used to represent binary relationships; diamonds are used to represent ternary relationships intended to communicate the existence of composite objects. We conclude that there are significant problems with the operationalization of the independent variable, construct overload.

Experimental Implementation
Shanks et al. indicate that they produced the ontologically unclear diagram (Figure 4) from the ontologically clear diagram by converting each aggregate/composite class to a diamond (p. 561). Figure 3 contains four aggregate/composite classes: Team, Project, Project Plan, and Purchase Requisition. If the stated procedure had been followed, then each of these would appear as a diamond in Figure 4. However, only Team, Project Plan, and Purchase Requisition appear as diamonds. Project has inexplicably been represented as a UML class (a rectangle). Conversely, each diamond in Figure 4 should correspond to an aggregate/ composite class in Figure 3. Again, one of the four is not mapped according to the specified procedure. The Phase relationship in Figure 4 corresponds to a class in Figure 3 that is neither aggregate nor composite. However, if ternary relationships are intended to implicitly represent composites then, according to the rea-

952

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

soning of Shanks et al., this change has the effect of asserting that projects are composed of phases in the ontologically clear diagram, but that phases are composed of projects (and consumables and key deliverables) in the ontologically unclear diagram. This is problematic itself; however, the implications for the studys validity are deeper than the introduction of counterintuitive domain semantics in one treatment. Recall that Shanks et al. set out to study differences in user performance when composites are represented explicitly as classes as compared to implicitly as relationships. To effect this examination, they implement the ontologically clear treatment where the four composite entities are represented as classes (Figure 3). Their experimental protocol calls for a second, ontologically unclear treatment, analogous to the first, where the four composites are represented implicitly by using relationships (Figure 4). However, in Figure 4, Project and Phase are represented in a way that is inconsistent with the experimental protocol. As described by Shanks et al., subjects answering questions involving projects should be examining a class in one treatment and a relationship in the other. This difference is the basis for drawing inferences about differences in subject performance. However, because Project is presented as a UML class in both diagrams, no such inferences can be made. Moreover, because Phase is represented as a relationship in Figure 4 even though it is not a composite in Figure 3, differences in subject performance will undoubtedly be introduced that cannot be attributed to representing a composite explicitly as a class versus implicitly as a relationship. These errors in the experimental materials might not be critical if Project and Phase were of only peripheral importance to the experimental task. However, each of the 11 questions refers directly to either Project or to Phase and most (6 of 11) refer to both (see Appendix B for the questions used in the Shanks et al. study). Accordingly, performance on every part of the experimental task is influenced by this error in the experimental materials.

factor would be confounded by the use of ternary relationships. The ontologically unclear treatment would differ from the ontologically clear treatment in that it would include both construct overload and ternary relationships while the ontologically clear treatment contained neither. The semantics of ternary relationships are more difficult to understand than the semantics of binary relationships, especially for novices (Batra et al. 1990; Rumbaugh et al. 2005; Topi and Ramesh 2002). Thus, even without any ontology-based differences in the diagrams, one would expect Figure 4 to result in lower participant performance. The qualitative analysis presented by Shanks et al. suggests that confusion around the ternary relationship construct was fundamental to differences in observed performance. Reported subject statements (p. 568) included the ternary relationship is what confuses me and I cant understand why consumables and deliverables are related (via a ternary relationship). This conjecture is supported by our first experimental study presented below. Moreover the questions that make up the experimental task systematically favor the ontologically clear diagram in a manner that is independent from the intended experimental treatment (ontological clarity), further strengthening the confounding effects. Several of the questions in the experimental task are more difficult to answer in the ontologically unclear diagram than in the ontologically clear diagram. Other questions make statements that are incompatible with the semantics expressed in ontologically unclear diagram, likely causing confusion among subjects in this treatment. Details are discussed in Appendix B.

Deviations from UML Definitions


Shanks et al. indicate that they made a single deviation from standard UML class diagram notation: To avoid having cluttered diagrams, we placed attributes beside class boxes rather than in them. Otherwise we have used standard UML notation (p. 560). However, the experimental materials exhibit two additional notational deviations that may have had significant, unintended influence on the studys results. First is the positioning of the names of the ternary relationships in Figure 4. In ER notation, the names of relationships appear inside the diamond; however, according to the rules of UML the name of the association (if any) is shown near the diamond not in the diamond (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 470).5 Of the symbols used in Figure 4, the only construct

Confounds in the Experimental Treatment


Two factors confound the experimental treatments: the imbalanced use of ternary relationships and the experimental task favoring one diagram in a manner distinct from the experimental treatment. The ontologically unclear treatment (Figure 4), with which subjects had inferior performance, uses ternary relationships while the ontologically clear treatment (Figure 3) does not. That is, even if the ontologically unclear treatment represented construct overload, the effects of this

We use Rumbaugh et al. (2005) as the authoritative reference for the UML because its authors are the creators of the UML and because it is the source cited by Shanks et al.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

953

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

allowed to have writing inside its borders is the rectangular class symbol. Placing the names of associations inside the symbol borders could have the effect of making them seem more like classes. This, in conjunction with using nouns to name the ternary relationships, encourages the misreading of the relationships as if they were classes. Such a misreading is likely to lead to the erroneous interpretation of the cardinality constraints, which could cause subjects to conclude that an instance of a ternary relationship can exist without an instance of each of the related classes (e.g., a phase relationship instance without a related key deliverable). This is clearly prohibited by the definition of a relationship and doing so would result in incorrect answers for several questions. The second problematic departure from standard UML notation pertains to multiplicity (cardinality constraints). For ternary relationships (associations), Rumbaugh et al. state, the multiplicity on an association end represents the potential number of values at the end when the values at the other [two] ends are fixed (p. 470). Clarifying this definition they continue, for example, given a ternary association among classes (A, B, C), the multiplicity of the C end states how many C objects may appear in association with a particular pair of A and B objects. If the multiplicity of this association is (many, many, one),6 then for each possible (A, B) pair there is a unique C value (p. 472). Consider the Team ternary association from Figure 4. If the multiplicities are read according to the UML definition, the 0..* near the Project class indicates that each possible combination of a team member and a team leader need not be associated with any project, but could be associated with several, which seems a reasonable constraint. However, consider the 1..* near the Team Leader class. This notation signifies that each possible combination of team member and project must be associated with at least one team leader. Accordingly, every team member must be associated with every project according to the UML definition. However, Shanks et al. describe in footnote 7 (p. 560) that subjects were taught to interpret the multiplicity symbols of ternary relationships differently. According to the instruction that subjects received, they should have read the 0..* near Project to indicate that any given project might not participate in the Team association or might participate in it many times. Likewise, the 1..* near Team Leader should be interpreted to mean that each Team Leader must participate in the Team association at least once but can participate in it multiple times. This definition conforms to the notion of participation
6

constraints, as specified in some variants of the ER model (Liddle et al. 1993); however, it differs significantly from the definition of cardinality constraints in UML (see Appendix A). The effects of using nonstandard definition of cardinality constraints depends on subjects experience with UML. Subjects with extensive UML experience were likely to be confused by the nonstandard notation and perhaps apply the standard definitions to the model, resulting in incorrect answers for some of the questions. While Shanks et al. disclose that most of their subjects had prior modeling experience, including experience with UML, neither the number of subjects having UML experience nor the level of that experience is reported. Accordingly, the severity of any concern resulting from this second departure from the UML standard is uncertain.

Analysis of Performance
Ascribing a numerical representation to subjects performance is fundamental to analyzing the results of any experiment. The validity of the statistical analysis is only as strong as the scoring of participant performance on the experimental task. In the study conducted by Shanks et al., the experimental task required participants to answer 11 questions by referencing the UML class diagram they received (each participant received either Figure 3 or Figure 4). Although all 11 questions are presented, answers were provided for only questions 2 and 10. As discussed below, question 2 was scored incorrectly for the ontologically clear treatment. Question 2 reads as follows: A team leader has resigned. Does the model allow the team to continue to work on the project without him? Shanks et al. indicate that the correct answer for the ontologically clear treatment (Figure 3) is possible and that the correct answer for the ontologically unclear treatment (Figure 4) is not possible. We agree that the correct answer for the ontologically unclear treatment is not possible. As discussed above, the existence of an instance of a relationship requires exactly one instance of each related entity; hence, a team cannot exist without its leader. However, that is also the correct answer for the ontologically clear treatment. Explaining their rationale for claiming that the correct answer for the ontologically clear model is possible, Shanks et al. state that because team leader is weakly aggregated in the

The designation (many, many, one) for the relationship (A, B, C) indicates that the cardinality constraint is 0..* on the A end, 0..* the B end, and 1..1 on the C end.

954

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

ontologically clear diagram, the team can still exist if the leader resigns (p. 565). This statement is inconsistent with the definition of aggregation in the UML grammar. Shanks et al. assert that weak aggregation allows a team to exist without all of its constituents.7 However, aggregation does not indicate that the aggregate can exist without its parts; but rather, that a partmay exist independently from the aggregate (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 164). Rumbaugh et al. further explain that constraints such as existence dependency are specified by the multiplicity, not the aggregation marker (p. 166). Thus, to answer the question of whether the team can exist without its leader, the multiplicity of the aggregate association must be examined. On the Team side of the relationship the multiplicity (1..*) indicates that a team leader may be associated with one or more teams; the multiplicity (1) on the Team Leader side indicates that a team must be associated with exactly one team leader.8 Accordingly, a team must have a leader to exist and the correct answer for question 2 in the ontologically clear treatment (Figure 3) is not possible. Because of this misunderstanding of the UML notation for aggregation, subjects responses for question 2 in the ontologically clear treatment were scored incorrectly. According to Figure 3, the team cannot exist without its leader. Without more information about how the other nine questions were scored, it is not possible to determine if this is an isolated or a pervasive problem. However, with such problems in the scoring of participant answers and the aforementioned confounds, the statistical analysis of the experimental results involving subjects performance cannot be interpreted as supporting the hypotheses.

conjecture that users of conceptual modeling diagrams better understand domain semantics when expressed using binary relationships than when expressed using ternary relationships. Our results, described in more detail below, clearly support this conjecture. The second experiment further explicates the effects of confounding construct overload and conceptual modeling constructs and demonstrates requisite methodological procedures to test the effects of construct overload while considering the effects of differences in conceptual modeling constructs. As described below, the results of this study show that construct overload does not have a significant effect on subjects performance, at least in the context studied. Subjects in both experiments were university students majoring in Information Systems at a large private university. Each had received several months training on UML including binary and ternary associations, association classes, and aggregationthe main concepts used in the experimental treatments. Neither of the authors was involved in the training. In all, 33 subjects participated in the first experiment and 82 participated in the second experiment. There was no overlap of subjects in the two experiments. In each experiment, subjects were randomly assigned to treatments. The two treatments used for experiment 1 are illustrated in Figure 5. Subjects were told that, due to public health concerns, Wasatch Pork Distributors (WPD) had been required to track which pigs were involved in purchases made by each of its customers and that two different diagrams were proposed by competing consultants. Each subject was asked to answer nine questions about the semantics conveyed by each diagram (order of presentation was randomized). The decision of casting subjects in the role of evaluating proposed diagrams was made to allow subjects to identify what they perceived to be errors in the diagrams without feeling the need to reconcile the diagram to the given description of the business domain. The diagram proposed by Consultant 1 contained a ternary relationship while the diagram proposed by Consultant 2 contained three binary relationships. Each diagram expresses similar, though not identical, domain semantics. Both allowed WPD to track which customers purchased portions of which pigs. Subjects overall performance for the diagram containing the ternary relationship was significantly worse than subjects performance for the binary-only diagram (n = 33; p = 0.0002; within subjects analysis). Subjects performed almost 50 percent better with the binary treatment than they did with the ternary treatment, correctly answering, on average, 6.6 as com-

New Experimental Evidence


We argue that the significant statistical results reported by Shanks et al. could be explained equally well by the asymmetric use of ternary relationships in their experimental materials, as opposed to Shanks et al.s contention they were caused by construct overload. To investigate this, we conducted two experiments. The first experiment tested the
7 The term weak aggregation is not expressly defined in the UML, although it may reasonably be used to distinguish aggregation from a stronger from of aggregation, called composition (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 164). In general, the term used to distinguish aggregation from its stronger form (composition) is shared aggregation (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 164).

When a single integer is used to express multiplicity, it stands for both the minimum and the maximum value (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 466).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

955

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

a. Model Proposed by Consultant 1


PIG Breed Birth date Gender Organic Source Farm Slaughter Date 0..* Purchase 0..1 SALESPERSON Name Salary Commission Birth Date Hire Date

b. Model Proposed by Consultant 2


PIG Breed Birth date Gender Organic Source Farm Slaughter Date 1..1 Purchase 0..* Purchase Date 0..* 1..1 CUSTOMER Name Street Address City State ZIP Code 0..* SALESPERSON Name 1..1 Salary Commission Birth Date Hire Date

0..* CUSTOMER Name Street Address City State ZIP Code

Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Can a customer purchase a pig without a salesperson? Can two customers be involved in a single purchase? Can portions of the same pig be purchased by more than one customer? Can two different salespersons sell portions of the same pig to different customers? Can two different salespersons sell portions of the same pig to the same customer? Can a customer make a single purchase for portions of an organic pig and for portions of one that is not organic? Can a single purchase involve two salespersons? Can a customer make two different purchases for portions of the same pig from the same salesperson? Cuts from a particular pig have been found to be contaminated. Can responsibility for the sale of portions of that pig to that customer be limited to a single salesperson?

Consultant 1 Consultant 2 No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Figure 5. Experiment 1 (Wasatch Pork Distributors)

pared to 4.5 of the 9 questions, respectively. On a questionby-question basis, subjects performed significantly better ( = 0.05) on the binary treatment for questions 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8. In no case did subjects perform significantly better on the ternary treatment. We conclude that semantics expressed by ternary relationships are harder for users to understand than those expressed by binary relationships. This finding makes it clear that the use of ternary relationships in only one of the treatments used by Shanks et al. introduces a strong confound to their study. To make any claims about the effects of a particular ontological perspective, they would need to separate the effects of that perspective from the effects of the ternary relationship construct. This problem is not limited to ternarybinary distinctions. Any study that examines ontological differences in the presence of different conceptual modeling constructs must be able to separate the

two effects to make claims about either. Our second experiment demonstrates how this can be accomplished, utilizing the association class construct in place of the ternary association construct. Similar to experiment 1, experiment 2 casts participants in the role of evaluating different proposed diagrams of a common underlying business domain. Collaborative Auditing Incorporated (CAI) was presented as an auditing firm that provides advisory services to other companies. Again, subjects were told that two different consultants had proposed diagrams to represent the data requirements for CAIs day-to-day operations, which involve the performance of tasks by teams composed of a single auditor and a single client employee. To delineate the effects of the modeling notation from the effects of construct overload, two different experimental forms were developed yielding four treatments (Figure 6).

956

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Ontological Clarity UML Syntactic Construct Studied Association Class Relationship Figure 6. Experimental Treatment Summary Overloaded Figure 7a Figure 9b Not Overloaded Figure 9a Figure 7b

a. Association Class Overloaded


Association class notation is used to represent a simple association (i.e., Works For and Contracts With) as well as a composite (i.e., Team and Assignment)

b. Association Class Not Overloaded


Labeled arc notation is used to represent a simple association (i.e., Works For and Contract With) while aggregation is used to represent a composite (i.e., Team and Assignment).

Figure 7. Experiment 2 (Form 1): Collaborative Auditing Incorporated

Each experimental form individually replicates the Shanks et al. study illustrating the methodological difficulties they encountered. These can be overcome simply by a combined analysis of the two forms. In the first experimental form (Figure 7), two UML 2.0 class diagrams were presented that represent a common underlying business domain, each purported to have been developed by a different consultant. Figure 7a exhibits construct overload by using association classes to represent both composition and regular association.

Figure 7b avoids construct overload by using labeled arcs to represent regular association and the aggregation notation (the open diamond at one end of a labeled arc) to represent composition. Each subject answered the same set of 11 questions (shown with answers in Figure 8) for each representation. In all cases the answers to the questions were the same for both representations, thereby eliminating the possibility of performance differences arising as a result of unbalanced counterintuitive domain semantics. Because each subject answered

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

957

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Questions 1. An account rep is concerned that client employees who have more experience than auditors might unduly influence assignment findings. Can she list all teams for a given client where the client employee has a hire date that is earlier than the auditors? 2. A team is assigned to perform five tasks. Does the model make provisions for more than one auditor to work on some of those assignments? 3. A client entered a contract which will begin in five months time. CAI wants to create a team with an auditor now, and give the client the next five months to select an appropriate client employee. Is this possible? 4. A contract as a number of assignments that can be performed simultaneously. Is it possible for a single client employee to work on two concurrent assignments? 5. A client has supplied CAI with the list of employees that will be used for an audit; however, no decision has been made about which auditor will be assigned. Does the model allow CAI to record the names of the client employees? 6. An auditor wishes to check her skill appropriateness for an upcoming contract by checking the tasks to which she will be assigned. At this point, the client employees have been selected but they have not been paired with auditors to form teams. Does the model allow assignments to be made before auditors are paired with client employees? 7. An auditor and a client employee have been formed into a team on a contract that has been running for 3 months. Upon reviewing the contract details, they feel that the current set of assignments is inadequate to fulfill the contract. Can they produce a list of tasks which are planned for the current contract but which have not yet been assigned? 8. Because of financial difficulties, a client has requested a reduction in the scope of a contract. CAI is willing to renegotiate the contract scope. Can each team list the risks of their remaining assignments? 9. The Account Rep and client on a given contract are working to determine the set of tasks that will be completed to meet the contract terms. Does the model allow CAI to establish teams before any assignments are made? 10. CAI has hired a number of new auditors. Does the model allow CAI to track auditors who are not currently a part of any team? 11. A client has requested CAI to perform work that is not included in the task list. Does the model allow CAI to assign a team to perform that work without creating any new tasks?

Answers Yes

No No Yes No No

No

Yes No Yes No

Figure 8. Collaborative Auditing Incorporated Experimental Questions

the questions for a diagram with construct overload and for a diagram without construct overload, we balance subjects ability across treatments, reducing exogenous variability in subject responses. We randomized the order in which subjects received the two treatments to eliminate any systematic ordering bias. However, this experimental form suffers some of the same methodological difficulties as the Shanks et al. study. As illustrated in Figure 6, it varies two factors, the UML construct studied and construct overload. That is, although we do not use ternary relationships, our study uses association classes in only one treatmentthe one with construct overload. If subjects perform worse on that treatment, we cannot tell if the performance difference is due to construct overload or to the complexities of the association class notation. Our experience in teaching UML suggests that association classes, like ternary relationships, are difficult to understand. To correct for this methodological concern, we concurrently administered a second form of the experiment, randomly assigning subjects to one form or to the other.

In this form (Figure 9), again two UML 2.0 Class Diagrams were presented that represent the same underlying business domain, each purported to have been developed by a different consultant. Figure 9a is similar to Figure 7a in that both make use of association classes; however, Figure 9a avoids construct overload by using association classes to represent composition and labeled arcs to represent simple associations. Figure 9b exhibits construct overload by using labeled arcs to represent both simple association and to represent composition. Again, as illustrated in Figure 6, this form varies two factors, the UML construct studied and construct overload. However, in this form, the more complex construct, association class, is not overloaded while the simpler construct, association, is overloaded. Combining the results from both forms enables us to differentiate the effects of construct overload from the effects of association classes. The complete experimental design is summarized in Figure 10. A total of 82 subjects participated in this experiment, each randomly assigned to one of the two experimental forms. Each subject answered each of the 11 questions for each of

958

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

a. Labeled Arc Not Overloaded


Labeled arc notation is used to represent a simple association (i.e., Works For and Contracts With) while association class notation is used to represent composites (i.e., Team and Assignment)

b. Labeled Arc Overloaded


Labeled arc notation is used to represent simple association (i.e., Works For and Contracts With) as well as to represent composition (i.e., Team and Assignment)

Figure 9. Experiment 2 (Form 2): Collaborative Auditing Incorporated

the two diagrams in that experimental form. A correct answer was given a value of 1; an incorrect answer was given a value of 0. To facilitate a within-subject analysis, each subject received a score of 1, 0, or 1 for each of the 11 questions. A score of 1 indicates that, for a particular question, the subject produced the correct answer under conditions of no overload and the incorrect answer under conditions of overload. A score of 1 indicates the opposite. A score of 0 indicates no treatment effect (the subject answered the question correctly or incorrectly for both treatments). If the two experimental forms are evaluated independently, the effect of construct overload is confounded by the degree to which subjects understood association classes. Table 1 illustrates the results of doing so. In the first experimental form, all significant performance differences favored the treatment with no overload and no association classes (Figure 7b over Figure 7a). However, in the second experimental form all significant performance differences favored the treatment with overload and no association classes (Figure 9b over

Figure 9a). That is, if the first experimental form were used, and the effects of association classes were ignored, then the analysis would suggest that construct overload is detrimental to human performance. However, if the second experimental form were used, and the effects of association classes were ignored, then the analysis would suggest that construct overload is beneficial to human performance. Only by combining the experimental forms can the analysis separate the effects of construct overload from the effects of association classes. The results of the combined analysis are summarized in Table 2. Each of the 11 questions is analyzed in two ways. First, combining the results from the treatments with construct overload (Figure 7a and Figure 9b) compared to the treatments with no construct overload (Figure 7b and Figure 9a), we performed a within-subjects (paired observations) analysis, using the scoring calculation described above. Second, we performed two between-subjects analyses using a rank sum mean difference scoring, and isolating the effects of association classes.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

959

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Experimental Form 1 Figure 7

Composition Association Class Composition Association Class Figure 7a: n = 41

Composition Aggregation Composition Labeled Arc Figure 7b: n = 41

Between-Subject Analysis Composition Labeled Arc Composition Labeled Arc Figure 9b: n = 41 n = 82 Composition Association Class Composition Labeled Arc Figure 9a: n = 41 n = 82

Experimental Form 2 Figure 9

Within-Subject Analysis

Figure 10. Experimental Analysis Summary

Table 1. Independent Analysis of Experimental Forms


# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 n 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 Experimental Form 1 Mean Difference P-Value 0.12 0.267 0.37 < 0.001* 0.29 0.004* 0.02 1.000 0.12 0.227 -0.07 0.509 0.10 0.388 0.00 1.000 0.27 0.013* -0.02 1.000 -0.12 0.180 Experimental Form 2 Mean Difference P-Value 0.00 1.000 -0.37 0.003* -0.15 0.210 -0.05 0.688 -.05 0.688 0.07 0.549 -0.20 0.008* -0.10 0.289 -0.24 0.013* 0.07 0.549 0.15 0.238

*Significant at = 0.05. Note: Mean differences are calculated as performance on treatment without overload minus performance on treatment with overload.

960

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Table 2. Results of Statistical Tests for Experiment 2


Within Subjects Analysis Mean Difference* 0.061 0.000 0.073 -0.012 0.037 0.000 -0.049 -0.049 0.012 0.024 0.012 Between Subjects Analysis Figure 7a vs. Figure 9a Figure 7b vs. Figure 9b Rank Sum Rank Sum Mean Mean Difference* p-value Difference* p-Value 8 0.030 -3 0.341 3 0.514 -3 0.401 4 0.384 2 0.615 -3 0.375 2 0.509 -1 0.770 4 0.313 0 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 -4 0.313 -2 0.586 -2 0.541 4 0.295 -3 0.515 -1 0.792 3 0.457 -4 0.221 5 0.228

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

N 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82

p-value 0.332 1.000 0.377 1.000 0.629 1.000 0.503 0.455 1.000 0.832 1.000

*Null hypothesis: population mean difference = 0. Negative mean difference indicates that raw mean score on the diagram with construct overload as higher than its counterpart for that question. Note: Question 1 is not included in the performance analysis. It was included in the experimental treatment to force subjects using the overloaded diagrams from Figures 7a and 9b to engage the parts of the diagrams that overloaded constructs. Because of the unbalanced complexity this introduces in Figure 7a, performance differences cannot be attributed to construct overload for this question.

The within-subjects analysis yielded no significant performance differences for any question. The p-values ranged from 0.332 to 1.000 (Table 2, Within-Subjects Analysis). This provides compelling evidence that, at least in this context, construct overload is not predictive of user performance. Beyond the within-subject analysis, our experimental design allows us to conduct two meaningful between-subjects analyses to further examine any effect of construct overload while isolating the confounding effects of variations in UML syntax, specifically association classes. By comparing the performance of subjects on the overload treatment in experimental form 1 (Figure 7a) with the performance of subjects on the no-overload treatment of experimental form 2 (Figure 9a) we can examine the effect of construct overload with only minor variation in UML syntax. Both treatments used association classes. Likewise, we can compare performance on Figure 7b with that of Figure 9b to get another look at the effect of construct overload with very little variation in UML syntax. In this comparison, neither treatment uses association classes. In brief, none of the performance differences is significant even at an alpha of 0.20 (Table 2, Between-Subjects Analysis). In summary, if construct overload is predictive of human performance in problem solving tasks using conceptual models,

we would expect to see a preponderance of statistically significant results among the more than 30 tests (question comparisons) conducted. In fact, we observe none. This finding strongly suggests that construct overload is not a salient predictor of human performance in this context. Hence, based on our own experimental evidence, we argue that the results presented by Shanks et al. are explained simply and parsimoniously by the complexities of ternary relationships and unbalanced counterintuitive domain semantics rather than by any differences in construct overload.

Conclusions
Based on the above analysis of conceptual underpinnings, experimental procedures, and data analysis, we argue that there is insufficient evidence upon which to base the conclusions reported in Shanks et al., that their results add strength to a growing body of empirical work that supports the usefulness of ontological theories, especially Bunges (1977) theory, as a means of predicting the strengths and weaknesses of conceptual modeling grammars and practices (p. 570). Our own experimental results lead us to the opposite conclusion. Moreover, describing the theoretical underpinning for their study, Shanks et al. assert

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

961

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

The theory of ontological clarity is also not a contingency theory. In other words, according to the theory, instances of construct overload, construct redundancy, construct deficit, and construct excess will always undermine users understanding of conceptual models (p. 557). Given that we have provided compelling evidence that construct overload does not result in inferior human performance in the use of conceptual models, the theory of ontological clarity has been falsified (Popper 1963) and must either be discarded or modified to account for the new experimental findings. To the extent that prior studies rely on or support the theory of ontological clarity, they should be reexamined to determine the conditions under which the theory is predictive. For example, while we have falsified the theory in the context of construct overload, Bodart et al. (2001) argue support in the context of construct excess. All such studies that have reported support for the predictions of the theory of ontological expressiveness should be reviewed in detail for clues about the proper disposition of the theory. We again emphasize the importance of experimental research on conceptual modeling and we appreciate the difficulty of formulating research questions and appropriately developing and executing experimental procedures. Our critical comments are offered in the spirit of improving subsequent research in this area. The difficulties we describe can be addressed in future studies. If Bunges definition of composition is to be evaluated as a guide to conceptual modelers in their representation of phenomena, then that definition must be applied precisely and accurately and not confounded with differences in conceptual modeling constructs. Otherwise the experiment cannot be construed as providing evidence that supports the use of the ontology as a means of predicting the strengths and weaknesses of conceptual modeling models and practices (Shanks et al. 2008, p. 570). However, we see no compelling evidence to indicate that Bunges ontology holds significant promise as an underlying foundation for conceptual modeling. With no construct to represent conceptual objects or events, we contend that Bunges ontology suffers significant construct deficit with respect to the representation of business domains. This is by no means a criticism of Bunges ontology. Bunge developed his ontology for the expressed purpose of representing objective, scientific knowledge. It was not developed to represent human commerce or phenomena that occur in human industry. It was developed to represent concrete objects and only concrete objects, objects that exist in space and time, independent of human knowledge or intentions. We render no judgment on its value for the representation of such

objects. However, we assert that it was not intended to be used as a referent ontology for conceptual modeling of business systems and using it in that context is a misappropriation. We contend that social ontology, epistemology, cognitive theories, and theories of human memory structures and communication are a more appropriate basis for the evaluation of conceptual modeling grammars and practices (Allen and March 2006b; Gemino and Wand 2005). Searle (1995, 2006), for example, recognizes the significance of socially constructed objects such as corporations, contracts, agreements, commitments, money, and intellectual property in the execution of human endeavor. Such objects are socially defined and created by performative acts of social entities. They depend on human recognition and beliefs (epistemology) for their existence. That is, they exist only because people believe (or agree) they exist. Such objects are explicitly excluded from Bunges ontology, yet they are crucial components of business domains and must be included in conceptual models. The fundamental question for researchers, elegantly explicated by Wand and Weber (2002), is how can we model such domains to better facilitate our developing, implementing, using, and maintaining more valuable information systems? To answer this question we must first establish a conceptualization for information systems within business contexts. A fundamental role of an information system is that of a communication mechanism, providing a medium in which not only facts but intentions, obligations, commands, and interpretations of facts (knowledge and meaning) are recorded and disseminated within an organization (Kent 1978). Information systems play an active role in business processes (March and Allen 2007), participating in the gathering of business intelligence and the execution of business activities based upon the interpretation of the information gathered. These are cognitive tasks. Conceptual modeling grammars and practices should attempt to leverage human information processing capabilities rather than merely follow philosophical conceptualizations of existence. For example, humans have an innate competency for processing events. Human memory for events and past experiences is psychologically and physiologically different from human memory for facts and concepts (Nyberg 1998; Tulving 1983, 2002). Moreover, events are fundamental to narrative thinking (Robinson and Hawpe 1986) and to the representation of causality (Pillemer 1998; Ramesh and Browne 1999). Both are principal processes in human sense-making (Gee 1985). Furthermore, humans use this narrative/event processing competency as a powerful tool for verbal and written communication (Orr 1990).

962

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Ontologically, events are categorically distinct from objects (Bunge 1977; Davidson 1980). Hence, it can be argued that using the UML class construct to represent both events and objects will result in construct overload. However, studies in psychology (e.g., Wakslak et al. 2006; Zacks et al. 2007; Zacks and Tversky 2001) indicate that people conceptualize events and objects in a similar manner. That is, people ascribe identification and attributes to events and recall them in the same manner in which they recall physical objects. They conceptualize events as having parts (sub-events) and events constitute a significant component of human memory structures. Using the class construct to represent both events and objects can be viewed as an abstraction mechanism used to manage the complexity inherent in the modeled domain. This has been recognized by a number of researchers (e.g., Geerts and McCarthy 2002) and empirical research has indicated that representing events as entities is beneficial to human performance in certain information processing tasks (Allen and March 2006b). We encourage future research efforts aimed at gaining an understanding of the effects of using such abstraction mechanisms in conceptual modeling grammars and practices. We hope that our assessment of the work reported by Shanks et al. and the discussion of alternative foundational disciplines for conceptual modeling will stimulate discussion and will lead to the design and execution of additional experiments to test the implications of such proposed foundations.

Acknowledgments
We thank Gordon B. Davis, John V. Carlis, and Toby Teorey for their insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank Sham Navathe and Tom Nadeau for clarifying the intended meaning of data models used in their textbooks, Stephen W. Liddle for clarifying the meaning of the cardinality constraints for ternary relationships in the UML, and Mario Bunge for clarifying the definition of concrete objects in his ontology. Finally, we thank the senior editor, associate editor, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References
Allen, G. N., and March, S. T. 2006a. A Critical Assessment of the BungeWandWeber Ontology for Conceptual Modeling, in Proceedings of the 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, Milwaukee WI, pp. 25-30. Allen, G. N., and March, S. T. 2006b. The Effects of State-Based and Event-Based Data Representation on User Performance in Query Formulation Tasks, MIS Quarterly (30:2), pp. 269-290.

Batra, D., Hoffer, J. A., and Bostrom, R. P. 1990. Comparing Representations with Relational and EER Models, Communications of the ACM (33:2), pp. 126-139. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., and Weber, R. 2001. Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modeling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests, Information Systems Research (12:4), pp. 384-405. Bowen, P. L., OFarrell, R. A., and Rohde, F. H. 2006. Analysis of Competing Data Structures: Does Ontological Clarity Produce Better End User Query Performance, Journal of the AIS (7:1), Article 22. Bowen, P. L., OFarrell, R. A., and Rohde, F. H. 2009. An Empirical Investigation of End User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness versus Complexity, Information Systems Research (20:4), pp. 565-584. Bunge, M. 1977. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, Boston: Reidel. Burton-Jones, A., and Meso, P. 2006. Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis, Information Systems Research (17:1), pp. 38-60. Burton-Jones, A., Wand, Y., and Weber, R. 2009 Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars, Journal of the AIS (10:6), Article 1. Carlis, J., and Maguire, J. 2001. Mastering Data Modeling: A User-Driven Approach, Boston: Addison-Wesley. Chen, P. P-S. 1976. The Entity-Relationship ModelToward a Unified View of Data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (1:1), pp. 9-36. Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events, New York: Oxford University Press. Elmasri, R., and Navathe, S. B. 2004. Fundamentals of Database Systems (4th ed.), Boston: Pearson/Addison-Wesley. Feldman, M. S., and Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change, Administrative Science Quarterly (48:1), pp. 94-118. Fowler, M. 2003. UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, Boston: Addison-Wesley. Gee, J. P. 1985. The Narrativization of Experience in the Oral Style, Journal of Education (167), pp. 9-35. Geerts, G. L., and McCarthy, W. E. 2002. An Ontological Analysis of the Economic Primitives of the Extended-REA Enterprise Information Architecture, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems (3:1), pp. 1-16. Gemino, A., and Wand, Y. 2005. Complexity and Clarity in Conceptual Modeling: Comparison of Mandatory and Optional Properties, Data and Knowledge Engineering (55), pp. 301-326. Halpin, T., and Morgan, T. 2008. Information Modeling and Relational Databases (2nd ed.), Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Hansen, G., and Hansen, J. 1996. Database Management and Design (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Keet, C. M. 2008. Representing and Reasoning Over a Taxonomy of PartWhole Relations, Applied Ontology (3), pp. 91-110.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

963

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Kent, W. 1978. Data and Reality. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Limited. Kim, Y. G., and March, S. T. 1995. Comparing Data Modeling Formalisms, Communications of the ACM (38:6), pp.103-115. Liddle, S., Embley, D., and Woodfield, S. 1993. Cardinality Constraints in Semantic Data Models, Data and Knowledge Engineering, (11), pp. 235-270. March, S. T., and Allen, G. 2007. Ontological Foundations for Active Information Systems, International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies (3:1), pp. 1-13. Nyberg, L. 1998. Mapping Episodic Memory, Behavioral Brain Research (90), pp. 107-114. Orr, J. 1990. Sharing Knowledge, Celebrating Identity: Community Memory in a Service Culture, in Collective Remembering, D. Middleton and D. Edwards (eds.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 169-189. Pillemer, D. B. 1998. Momentous Events, Vivid Memories, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Popper, K. R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York: Harper and Row. Ramesh, V., and Browne, G. 1999. Expressing Casual Relationships in Conceptual Database Schema, The Journal of Systems and Software (45), pp. 225-232. Robinson, J. A., and Hawpe, L. 1986. Narrative Thinking as a Heuristic Process, iIn Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct, T. R. Sarbin (ed.), New York: Prager Publishers, pp. 111-125. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., and Booch. G. 2005. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual (2nd ed.), Boston: Addison-Wesley. Searle, J. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press. Searle, J. R. 2006. Social Ontology: Some Basic Principles, Anthropological Theory (6:1), pp. 12-29. Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D., and Weber, R. 2008. Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Modeling: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp. 553-573. Straub, D. 2008. Type II Reviewing Errors and the Search for Exciting Papers, MIS Quarterly (32:2), pp. v-x. Teorey, T., Lightstone, S., and Nadeau, T. 2006. Database Modeling and Design: Logical Design (4th ed.), San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Tulving, E. 1983. Elements of Episodic Memory, New York: Oxford University Press. Tulving, E. 2002. Episodic Memory: From Mind to Brain, Annual Review of Psychology (53), pp. 1-25. Topi, H., and Ramesh, V. 2002. Human Factors Research on Data Modeling: A Review of Prior Research, an Extended Framework and Future Research Directions Journal of Database Management (13:2), pp. 3-19. Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., and Alonyet, R. 2006. Seeing the Forest When Entry Is Unlikely: Probability and the Mental Representation of Events, Journal of Experimental Psychology (135:4), pp. 641-653.

Wand, Y., Monarchi, D., Parsons, J., and Woo, C. 1995. Theoretical Foundations for Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Development, Decision Support Systems (15), pp. 285-304. Wand, Y., Storey, V., and Weber, R. 1999. An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (24:4), pp. 494-528. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. 1993. On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars, Journal of Information Systems (3:4), pp. 217-237. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. 1995. On the Deep Structure of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal (5), pp. 203-233. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. 2002. Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual ModelingA Research Agenda, Information Systems Research (13:4), pp. 363-376. Wyssusek, B. 2006. On Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (18), pp. 63-80. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., and Reynolds, J. R. 2007. Event Perception: A MindBrain Perspective, Psychological Bulletin (133:2), pp. 273-293. Zacks, J. M., and Tversky, B. 2001. Event Structure in Perception and Conception, Psychological Bulletin (127:1), pp. 3-21.

About the Authors


Gove N. Allen received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 2001 and is currently an associate professor of information systems at Brigham Young Universitys Marriott School of Management. His research has appeared in such journals of MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Communications of the AIS, Journal of Database Management. Dr. Allen has consulted on implementing information technology with major corporations, including AT&T, Hewlett Packard, Micron, Intel, 3M, American Express, and the Kennedy Space Center. He is currently an associate editor for Electronic Commerce Research and Applications and Information and Management. Salvatore T. March is the David K. Wilson Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University. His research has appeared in journals such as ACM Computing Surveys, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, Communications of the ACM, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Information Systems Research, Journal of MIS, and MIS Quarterly. He has served as the Editor-in-Chief of ACM Computing Surveys, as a senior editor for Information Systems Research, and as an associate editor and Special Issue Guest Editor for MIS Quarterly. He has served as a consultant for organizations such as the Office of Naval Research, New England Marine Services Industry, the National Bureau of Standards, the Minnesota State University System, Pillsbury, United HealthCare, and Asurion.

964

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3/September 2012

RESEARCH NOTE

A RESEARCH NOTE ON REPRESENTING PARTWHOLE RELATIONS IN CONCEPTUAL MODELING


Gove N. Allen
Marriot School of Management, Brigham Young University, 783 Tanner Building, Provo, UT 84602 U.S.A. {gove@byu.edu}

Salvatore T. March
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203 U.S.A. {sal.march@owen.vanderbilt.edu}

Appendix A
A Review of Relevant UML and ER Notation
Section 1: Semantic Details of ER and UML Binary Association Relationships

SENIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number UML 1..1 Is Companion Of 0..*

JUNIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

ER

SENIOR SALES REP

1..1

Is Companion Of

0..*

JUNIOR SALES REP

A specific SENIOR SALES REP may or may not be the companion of any JUNIOR SALES REP. Each SENIOR SALES REP can be the companion of many JUNIOR SALES REPs. Each JUNIOR SALES REP must be associated with exactly one SENIOR SALES REP. An instance of the Is Companion Of relationship is a specific combination of a single SENIOR SALES REP and a single JUNIOR SALES REP. There can only be one instance of the relationship for a given combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

A1

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Sample Question Is it possible for a SENIOR SALES REP to not be the companion of a JUNIOR SALES REP? Can a JUNIOR SALES REP be the companion of more than one SENIOR SALES REP simultaneously? What is the name of the relationship between SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP?

Answer Yes. The minimum cardinality constraint near JUNIOR SALES REP is zero (0). This means that a SENIOR SALES REP need not participate in the association. No. The maximum cardinality constraint near the SENIOR SALES REP specifies that a JUNIOR SALES REP can be associated with at most one SENIOR SALES REP. Is Companion Of

Section 2: Semantic Details of UML Ternary Association Relationships

PRODUCT Product Name Category Description 0..1 SENIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number UML 1..1 Companionship 0..* JUNIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

Note: This section explains the cardinality constraints as defined in the UML . Shanks et al. (2008) instructed their subjects to use a different interpretation of these symbols . See Section 3 of this appendix for a description of the way in which Shanks et al . instructed their subjects to interpret these symbols

A Companionship is a single instance of the ternary relationship; it associates exactly one SENIOR SALES REP, exactly one PRODUCT and exactly one JUNIOR SALES REP. The cardinality constraint near SENIOR SALES REP (minimum = 1; maximum = 1) indicates that every possible combination of JUNIOR SALES REP and PRODUCT must be associated with exactly one SENIOR SALES REP. The cardinality constraint near PRODUCT (minimum = 0; maximum = 1) indicates that although every possible combination of JUNIOR SALES REP and SENIOR SALES REP need not be associated with a product (i.e., there is no instance of the relationship that associates that combination of JUNIOR SALES REP and SENIOR SALES REP) each combination can be associated with at most one PRODUCT. The cardinality constraint near JUNIOR SALES REP (minimum = 0; maximum = *) indicates that although every possible combination of PRODUCT and SENIOR SALES REP need not be associated with a JUNIOR SALES REP, it is possible for a specific combination to be associated with more than one JUNIOR SALES REP (Rumbaugh et al. 2005, p. 471).

A2

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Question What is a Companionship? Can a Companionship have more than one PRODUCT? Can a specific combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP be associated with more than one PRODUCT? Is it possible for a SENIOR SALES REP to participate in no Companionship?

Answer An instance of the Companionship association; a unique triplet of one SENIOR SALES REP, one JUNIOR SALES REP, and PRODUCT. No. A Companionship is the combination of exactly one each of SENIOR SALES REP, JUNIOR SALES REP, and PRODUCT. No. The cardinality constraint near PRODUCT indicates that a given combination of SENIOR SALE REP and JUNIOR SALES REP can hvae at most one PRODUCT. Yes. Because neither all combinations of PRODUCTs and SENIOR SALES REP require a JUNIOR SALES REP nor all combinations of JUNIOR SALES REP and SENIOR SALES REP require a PRODUCT, it is possible to have a SENIOR SALES REP that does not participate in a Companionship. No. The cardinality constraint near SENIOR SALES REP requires every possible combination of PRODUCT and JUNIOR SALES REP to be associated with a SENIOR SALES REP.

Is it possible for a JUNIOR SALES REP to participate in no Companionship?

Section 3: Semantic Details of ER Ternary Association Relationships

PRODUCT Product Name Category Description 0..1 SENIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number ER 1..1
Companionship

JUNIOR SALES REP 0..* First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

Note: Shanks et al. (2008) Adopted the participation constraint definition of ternary relationship cardinality constraints, which is explained here. Although different authors have given various definitions for the cardinality constraints of ternary relationships in ER (Liddle et al. 1993), we limit our discussion to participation constraints.

A Companionship is a single instance of the ternary relationship; it associates exactly one SENIOR SALES REP, exactly one PRODUCT and exactly one JUNIOR SALES REP. The cardinality constraint near SENIOR SALES REP (min = 1; max = 1) indicates that each SENIOR SALES REP must appear in the Companionship relationship exactly one time. The cardinality constraint near PRODUCT (minimum = 0; maximum = 1) indicates that each PRODUCT need not participate in a Companionship but cannot participate in more than one. The cardinality constraint near JUNIOR SALES REP (minimum = 0; maximum = *) indicates that a JUNIOR SALES REP need not participate in a Companionship but could appear in many.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

A3

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Question What is Companionship?

Answer An instance of the Companionship association. It is a specific combination of a SENIOR SALES REP and a JUNIOR SALES REP. This is the nature of an association class. No. A Companionship is the combination of exactly one each of SENIOR SALES REP, JUNIOR SALES REP, and PRODUCT. No. Each SENIOR SALES REP can only participate in a single Companionship.

Can a Companionship have more than one PRODUCT? Can a specific combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP be associated with more than one PRODUCT? Is it possible for a SENIOR SALES REP to participate in no Companionship? Is it possible for a JUNIOR SALES REP to participate in no Companionship?

No. Each SENIOR SALES REP must participate in exactly one Companionship. Yes. The minimum cardinality of 0 near JUNIOR SALES REP indicates that each need not appear in any Companionship.

Section 4: Semantic Details of UML Association Classes

COMPANIOINSHIP Begin Date Area Total Sales UML SENIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number 1..* 0..* JUNIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

Note: This notation is used in our second experiment and does not appear in the Shanks et al . study.

A specific SENIOR SALES REP may or may not be associated with any JUNIOR SALES REP. Each SENIOR SALES REP can be associated with many JUNIOR SALES REPs. Each JUNIOR SALES REP must be associated with at least one SENIOR SALES REP but could be associated with more. A specific combination of a single SENIOR SALES REP and a single JUNIOR SALES REP is called a COMPANIONSHIP. There can only be one COMPANIONSHIP for a given combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP.

A4

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Question What is a COMPANIONSHIP?

Answer An instance of the COMPANIONSHIP association. It is a specific combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP. It is also an instance of the COMPANIONSHIP class. This is the nature of an association class. Yes. The minimum multiplicity near JUNIOR SALES REP is zero (0). This means that a SENIOR SALES REP need not participate in the association. Yes. The maximum multiplicity near the SENIOR SALES REP specifies that a JUNIOR SALES REP can be associated with more than one SENIOR SALES REP. There is no constraint that prevents the two associations from existing at the same time. No. A specific combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP is a COMPANIONSHIP. Each COMPANIONSHIP has a single Area. Because COMPANIONSHIP is an association class, it is identified by its componentsthere can only be one COMPANIONSHIP for a given combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP. COMPANIONSHIP. The name of the association class is the name of the association. An attribute of the COMPANIONSHIP association or an attribute of the COMPANIONSHIP class. Both statements are true.

Is it possible for a SENIOR SALES REP to not participate in a COMPANIONSHIP? Can a JUNIOR SALES REP participate in two COMPANIONSHIPs simultaneously?

Can a specific combination of a SENIOR SALES REP and a JUNIOR SALES REP have two Areas?

What is the name of the association between SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP? What is Area?

Section 5: Semantic Details of UML Aggregation

Part of 0..* 1..1 UML SENIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

COMPANIONSHIP Begin Date Area Total Sales 1..*

Part of

1..1 JUNIOR SALES REP First Name Last Name Hire Date Mobile Phone Number

Note: This notation is used in our second experiment and as well as the Shanks et al . study.

A COMPANIONSHIP is composed of exactly one JUNIOR SALES REP and one SENIOR SALES REP. A specific SENIOR SALES REP need not be a component of any COMPANIONSHIP. Each SENIOR SALES REP can be a component of many COMPANIONSHIPS. Each JUNIOR SALES REP must be a component of at least one COMPANIONSHIP but could be component of more.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

A5

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

Question What is a COMPANIONSHIP?

Answer An instance of the COMPANIONSHIP class. It is a thing that is composed of one SENIOR SALES REP and one JUNIOR SALES REP. The small diamonds that touch the COMPANIONSHIP class indicate that it is composed of members of the associated classes. The cardinality constraints near the other two classes (1..1) indicate that a COMPANIONSHIP must have exactly one of each. Yes. The minimum cardinality constraint for SENIOR SALES REP near COMPANIONSHIP is zero (0). This means that a SENIOR SALES REP need not be a part of any COMPANIONSHIP. Yes. The maximum multiplicity near COMPANIONSHIP for JUNIOR SALES REP specifies that a JUNIOR SALES REP can be a part of more than one COMPANIONSHIP. Yes. A COMPANIONSHIP is composed of exactly one SENIOR SALES REP and one JUNIOR SALES REP. Although each COMPANIONSHIP has only a single Area, no constraint prevents two different COMPANIONSHIPs from being composed of the same combination of SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP. No such association exists. SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP are each individually associated with COMPANIONSHIP. In each case, the name of the association is Part of. An attribute of the COMPANIONSHIP class.

Is it possible for a SENIOR SALES REP to not not be a part of a COMPANIONSHIP? Can a JUNIOR SALES REP participate in two COMPANIONSHIPs simultaneously? Can a specific combination of a SENIOR SALES REP and a JUNIOR SALES REP have two Areas?

What is the name of the association between SENIOR SALES REP and JUNIOR SALES REP? What is Area?

Appendix B
Confounds Related to the Problem-Solving Questions Used in the Shanks et al. Study
Figure B1 lists the questions in the experimental task used by Shanks et al. (2008). Several are considerably more difficult to answer in the ontologically unclear diagram then in the ontologically clear diagram. Others make statements that are incompatible with the semantics expressed in ontologically unclear diagram, potentially causing confusion among subject in that treatment. Consider, for example, question 10 (see Figure B1). The question asks if it is possible to find the most current project plan for a project. According to Shanks et al., the answer to this question for both treatments is possible. For the ontologically clear treatment (Figure 3), a subject need only look at the Project Plan class and see that it has an attribute named Project Plan Version # to understand that project plans have versions and that this attribute holds the information necessary to provide the answer.1 However, for the ontologically unclear treatment (Figure 4), the process is not nearly so simple. To arrive at an answer of possible for this question subjects in the ontologically unclear treatment would need to understand that an instance of the Project Plan relationship is the association of one project instance, one budget instance, and one scope instance. Budget has an attribute named Budget Version # and Scope has an attribute named Scope Version #. A subject must reason that if a given Project Plan instance associates a specific Project instance, with a Budget instance that has the highest value of Budget Version # and a Scope instance that has the highest value of Scope Version # for that Project instance then the project plan is the current one. Further, the subject must also reason that for any given project, the budget with the highest Budget Version # will appear in the same project plan as the scope with the highest Scope Version #. This requires a careful examination of the participation constraints of the Project Plan relationship. The 1 near Budget

It is unclear why the Shanks et al. argue that subjects using the ontologically clear diagram would check the budget # and scope # attributes to determine whether they are those associated with the latest version of the project plan (footnote 13, p. 563) rather than check the project plan version # attribute.

A6

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

For each of the following questions, participants were asked to choose from the following three responses: possible; not possible; not sure. They were then asked to briefly explain their answer. 1. Project X is made up of ten phases. Does the model allow more than one team leader to work on some of the phases? 2. A team leader has resigned. Does the model allow the team to continue to work on the project without him? 3. A client has requested that a project will start in five months time. A department wants to create a team with a leader now, and give the leader the next five months to select appropriate team members as she pleases. Is this possible? 4. Project Z has overlapping phases, which occur simultaneously. Is it possible for a single team member to work on two concurrent phases? 5. Project Y consists of two phases. Phase 1 has been completed without consumables. Phase 2 now requires the purchase of consumables such as floppy disks, zip drives, and architects pencils. Does the model allow the team to purchase these necessary consumables? 6. The client of project D decides on a weekly basis what work will be required for the project. The project has no key deliverables but will require consumables. Can the project keep track of the consumables it purchases? 7. The client for project X wishes to make purchase requisitions for its next three phases, as there are rumors that the consumables they require will be experiencing a shortage. The supplier has not yet been decided. Does the model allow the purchase requisitions to be made? 8. An employee wishes to check their skill appropriateness for an upcoming project by checking the key deliverables and scope of the project. At this point, the project has been divided up into phases, but contains no project plan. Using the diagram, can the employee check their suitability? 9. Client Z has used the same supplier for the past 5 years. The supplier charges at a discount rate and bills at the end of each phase. Does the model allow the purchase of consumables if there are no key deliverables? 10. An employee becomes a member on a project that has been running for 3 years. He has been given a project plan, but its budget and scope do not seem to match the size and completeness of the project. Can he check that he has the current plan? 11. A client has had to significantly reduce the budget of a project with five phases remaining. The reduced budget is not enough to cover all these phases. Can the team leader prioritize the remaining phases?

Figure B1. Experimental Questions Used by Shanks et al. (Appendix A in Shanks et al. 2008, p. 573)

indicates that each budget is a part of one and only one project plan. The 1 near Scope indicates that each scope is a part of one and only one project plan. Because each project plan must have a scope and a budget, for a new Project Plan instance to exist, it must be associated with a new Budget instance and a new Scope instance. Accordingly, the newest instance of the Budget class will always be associated with the newest instance of the Scope class in the most recently created project plan. Given this reasoning, a subject can determine that it is possible to tell if a given project plan is the most current. Clearly, arriving at the answer using the ontologically unclear diagram is more difficult than arriving at the answer using the ontologically clear diagram. It is important to note that the added difficulty arises not because of any differences in ontological clarity but because the information needed to answer the question resides not in a single attribute of a single class but in two different attributes of two different classes and requires reasoning about participation constraints and instance creation. Similarly, question 11 asks if phases can be prioritized. This question is easy to answer affirmatively (possible) in the ontologically clear diagram because Priority Level is an attribute in the Phase class. No such attribute exists in the ontologically unclear diagram. However, before a subject using this diagram can determine that the answer is not possible, she must conduct a search of other entities and attributes and assess if there might be some other way to establish the priority of phases, a more involved and complex process than finding the single attribute Priority Level. Finally, several questions include statements that are incompatible with the ontologically unclear diagram, while none include statements that are incompatible with the ontologically clear diagram. For example, questions 1 and 5 assert that projects are composed of phases. This assertion is explicitly represented in the ontologically clear diagram, but is inconsistent with the ontologically unclear diagram. If the ternary

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

A7

Allen & March/Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Meaning

relationships in the ontologically unclear diagram are intended to implicitly represent composites then the interpretation is not that a project is composed of phases, but rather that a phase is composed of a project, a key deliverable and a consumable. Question 5 further states that a phase has been completed without consumables. This is possible in the ontologically clear diagram but not in the ontologically unclear diagram (a phase instance in the ontologically unclear diagram is the association of exactly one project, one key deliverable, and one consumable; all are required for a phase to exist). Similarly, question 3 indicates that teams can have more than one member. Again, this is possible in the ontologically clear diagram but not in the ontologically unclear diagram (a team instance in the ontologically unclear diagram is the association of exactly one project, one leader and one member). Subjects faced with such contradictory statements in the experimental materials would undoubtedly be forced to reevaluate their understandings of the ontologically unclear diagram as they tried to resolve these conflicts, potentially making the task more difficult and potentially reducing their confidence in their knowledge about the meaning of the diagram. Because these questions systematically favor the ontologically clear treatment in ways that are independent of ontological clarity, they confound the analysis of subject performance. It is not possible to conclude that that the source of any observed performance differences is ontological clarity. Performance cannot be interpreted as supporting the studys propositions.

References
Liddle, S., Embley, D., and Woodfield, S. 1993. Cardinality Constraints in Semantic Data Models, Data and Knowledge Engineering, (11), pp. 235-270. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., and Booch. G. 2005. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual (2nd ed.), Boston: Addison-Wesley. Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D., and Weber, R. 2008. Representing PartWhole Relations in Conceptual Modeling: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp. 553-573.

A8

MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 3Appendices/September 2012

Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen