Talk:Object–role modeling

Link to Entity-Relationship modeling
the following text in the history section which relates OBR to ER:


 * conceptual approach is provided by Entity-Relationship modeling (ER).[4] Although ER models can be useful once the design process is finished, they are less suitable for formulating, transforming or evolving a design. ER diagrams are further removed from natural language, cannot be populated with fact instances, require complex design choices about attributes, lack the expressibility and simplicity of a role-based notation for constraints, hide information about the semantic domains which glue the model together, and lack adequate support for formal transformations.[3]

Now the section was removed twince by 118.67.22.34 with other explaination: Now both arguments make no sense to me. Terry Halpin is a notable scientist, who is suppost to create original research. It doesn't really matter much where he published his work. So if there is something wrong with the text please explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Text about ER modelling here does is related to ORM
 * Halpin's Work at Microsoft was self published at Microsoft, and constitutes 'original research'.


 * I have remove the questionable text here for now (which I added myself) and will try to find an other scientist to explain the relationship. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with term "Fact"
According to the Wikipedia article on "Fact", the term "Fact" is commonly used to refer to something that is actually the case. In other words, a fact is a proposition that is verifiably true.

Object-role modeling(ORM) uses the terms "Fact" and "Fact Type" to refer to the propositions that are used by a modeler to describe a Universe of Discourse.

For example, the proposition "Fred lives in London" is called a "Fact" that is an instance of the "Fact Type" : "Person lives in City". However, there is nothing in ORM that prevents the modeler from entering propositions such as: "The Unicorn with the name Fred lives in London."

In other words, "Facts" in ORM can refer to things that are actually the case or to things that are fictional.

It seems to me that the ability to model both fact and fiction is a useful property of ORM but I wonder if the ORM community should stop using the word "Fact" and use a different term instead.

Any suggestions or comments?

It seems to me that it is too simplistic to say that a "Fact" can be either "actually the case" or "fictonal".

For example, according to Searle, there can be objective facts about subjective (aka fictional) things.

Searle uses the example of money. If you have some currency in your pocket (say a $20 bill) then it is an objective fact that you have a $20 bill in your pocket. However, money itself is a human invention - in other words money is a fiction that most people accept because it is convenient.

So, I think that this problem cannot be solved just by using a different term such as "proposition". Ken Evans 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs)

Too many external links
Not only is the article body overloaded with ELs, the EL section is as well. I have removed the following to bring that section into compliance with guidelines. I've copied the deleted entries here: Joja lozzo  05:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pieter De Leenheer's blog on fact-based ontology modelling
 * PNA Group: Dutch consultancy for fact-based modeling
 * Collibra: Information Governance software based on fact-oriented ontologies (using OMG SBVR)
 * Erik Proper's publications site
 * STARLab group at Free University of Brussels
 * NIAM/ORM
 * NORMA - Natural Object Role Modeling Architect
 * NORMA - The ORM Project at SourceForge
 * DOGMA Studio, an Eclipse plugin-based fact-oriented ontology engineering tool suite
 * CaseTalk, The FCO-IM casetool
 * DogmaModeler, an ontology Engineering tool based on ORM
 * ORM Workshops: ORM-2005, ORM-2006, ORM2007, ORM-2008
 * ORM 2010 Workshop (held on 27–29 October 2010 in Hersonissou, Crete, Greece)
 * The website of the Fact-Based Modeling working group.

Requested move 03 March 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Object-Role Modeling → Object-role modeling – ORM is a generic concept, not a proper noun phrase, and should be lower case per MOS:CAPS. I suspect it has been capitalized to illuminate the ORM acronym but that is contrary to capitalization guidelines. Joja lozzo  05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support as a generic concept, it should be the usual sentence case. Also ORM more commonly means object-relational mapping. --Mark viking (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as it's not a proper name. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral I have no idea what the term "generic concept" means - for me it is meaningless. Semiotics tells us that words themselves are just meaningless strings of symbols and it is the observer who chooses what the word means to them. Of course, specific knowledge communities give meanings to specific strings of symbols(aka words) - but this is quite an arbitrary process. Having said that, the term object-role modeling has a very specific meaning within the information modeling community. The term dates back to 1976 whereas the term "object relational mapping" only appeared about 15 years ago to refer to something that is completely different to object-role modeling. So Mark, you may want to reconsider your claim of "more commonly used" - on what evidence do you base this claim? Ken Evans 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite of the article
Hi,

I'm trying to provide a major rewrite of this article, to improve certain issues.

The rewrite addresses the following points: (a) To point out the linguistic and language-philosophical roots of the object-role model. (b) To clarify the objectives of the object-role model in the context of information systems. (c) To improve neutrality by reducing some of the bias of the current article towards a particular version of or tool for object-role modeling. (d) To improve accuracy regarding the history of object-role modeling. (e) To clarify some terminological issues, e.g.: object-entity-thing; role-predicator; fact-fiction; the distinction between the meta model (the object-role model in this case) and a conceptual schema (including or excluding instances) as a specific population of the meta model; etc.

Could those of you interested in the subject please give me some feedback.

My rewrite proposal is currently in my sandbox User:Hfroehn/sandbox

(I guess this is readable from the outside; if not, please let me know)

Cheers,

(HendrikFroehn@gmail.com) Hendrik Froehn (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have taken a look, and in the first place wonder what the origin of the text is? It seem like original research (while there is No original research); the references and notes give some more data but don't allow Verifiability; and not a single secondary source seem to be used, while this is the preference, see WP:SECONDARY.


 * In the second place I very much doubt if the article should start with the phrase "...‘object-role modeling’ (ORM), ‘natural-language information analysis method’ (NIAM), or 'fact-based modeling'..."...!? Some arguments against putting them one one line are:
 * For a start, ORM seem to relate to the work of Eckhard D. Falkenberg and Terry Halpin, while NIAM relates to the work of Sjir Nijssen. I have encountered maybe a dozen sources that put both on one line, but there are dozens of sources mention one without the other.
 * Strictly speaking object-role modeling is about modeling an "object-role" relationship, while "natural-language information analysis method" takes the "use of natural language" as the base of information analysis...
 * Also the history: ORM and NIAM seem to have two separate origins: Nijssen and Falkenberg. Both have worked together but then have been further developed separately. Nijssen, for example, developed it into CogNIAM, and especially Terry Halpin popularized ORM.
 * I think it is better to focus on object-role modeling (ORM) and not take three terms at once. Explain the relations later.


 * One other thing is the structure of the text of the proposal. I have written or restructured most of the lemma's on modelling language on Wikipedia into a format in which most of the article is about the specifics of the modelling language; and (mostly) one historical part is about the organization, the people and organizations behind it and the time frame of its developments. With such a format it is quite clear from the start what the article is offering. Now the proposal doesn't make that division. There is a main part about what about its intentions... while there is not text about the context, about the philosophy, about how it looks, an example, some images of the basic building blocks. And if it is a meta model... what is it? What has it got to offer? How it does it work?


 * I think the most important thing about this kind of articles on wikipedia, that it should give a first introduction... and thereby it is important for readers to learn more where they can found more information. Links to secondary sources which are made available online are the backbone of a good wikipedia lemma, and this is not (yet) present. -- Mdd (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mdd, Thanks for looking at my draft and for your comments. I still think that the current article needs to be improved wrt. to the above points (a)...(e). I will try to work out a new draft, according to what you said. But this will take some time.

Cheers

Hendrik Froehn (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)