Paper Type
Complete
Abstract
Forward engineering in Entity–Relationship Diagram (ERD) tools transforms conceptual models into executable database schemas. Drawing on representation theory, this study conceptualizes forward engineering as a transformation between representations (ERDs and SQL schemas), where semantic fidelity depends on whether conceptual constructs are realized as enforceable constraints. Despite widespread use, it remains unclear whether ERD semantics are preserved during this transformation. Using a rubric-based, incremental design, this study compares a schema-first and a diagram-first ERD tool by analyzing SQL schemas generated from identical ERDs targeting the same DBMS. Results show that while both evaluated tools correctly implement basic relational constructs, they diverge in enforcing identity-dependent semantics. Neither tool enforces supertype–subtype (ISA) semantics, indicating a representational limitation. These findings show that visually correct ERDs do not guarantee semantically faithful schemas and that fidelity must be evaluated at the level of generated SQL.
Paper Number
1129
Recommended Citation
Alam, Mohammed Gaus, "Semantic Fidelity in ERD Forward Engineering" (2026). AMCIS 2026 Proceedings. 2.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2026/conftheme/conftheme/2
Semantic Fidelity in ERD Forward Engineering
Forward engineering in Entity–Relationship Diagram (ERD) tools transforms conceptual models into executable database schemas. Drawing on representation theory, this study conceptualizes forward engineering as a transformation between representations (ERDs and SQL schemas), where semantic fidelity depends on whether conceptual constructs are realized as enforceable constraints. Despite widespread use, it remains unclear whether ERD semantics are preserved during this transformation. Using a rubric-based, incremental design, this study compares a schema-first and a diagram-first ERD tool by analyzing SQL schemas generated from identical ERDs targeting the same DBMS. Results show that while both evaluated tools correctly implement basic relational constructs, they diverge in enforcing identity-dependent semantics. Neither tool enforces supertype–subtype (ISA) semantics, indicating a representational limitation. These findings show that visually correct ERDs do not guarantee semantically faithful schemas and that fidelity must be evaluated at the level of generated SQL.
When commenting on articles, please be friendly, welcoming, respectful and abide by the AIS eLibrary Discussion Thread Code of Conduct posted here.
Comments
NEXTTRANS