Hubbry Logo
Information modelInformation modelMain
Open search
Information model
Community hub
Information model
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Information model
Information model
Information model
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An IDEF1X diagram, an example of an Integration Definition for Information Modeling

An information model in software engineering is a representation of concepts and the relationships, constraints, rules, and operations to specify data semantics for a chosen domain of discourse. Typically it specifies relations between kinds of things, but may also include relations with individual things. It can provide sharable, stable, and organized structure of information requirements or knowledge for the domain context.[1]

Overview

[edit]

The term information model in general is used for models of individual things, such as facilities, buildings, process plants, etc. In those cases, the concept is specialised to facility information model, building information model, plant information model, etc. Such an information model is an integration of a model of the facility with the data and documents about the facility.

Within the field of software engineering and data modeling, an information model is usually an abstract, formal representation of entity types that may include their properties, relationships and the operations that can be performed on them. The entity types in the model may be kinds of real-world objects, such as devices in a network, or occurrences, or they may themselves be abstract, such as for the entities used in a billing system. Typically, they are used to model a constrained domain that can be described by a closed set of entity types, properties, relationships and operations.

An information model provides formalism to the description of a problem domain without constraining how that description is mapped to an actual implementation in software. There may be many mappings of the information model. Such mappings are called data models, irrespective of whether they are object models (e.g. using UML), entity relationship models or XML schemas.

Information modeling languages

[edit]
A sample ER diagram
Database requirements for a CD collection in EXPRESS-G notation

In 1976, an entity-relationship (ER) graphic notation was introduced by Peter Chen. He stressed that it was a "semantic" modelling technique and independent of any database modelling techniques such as Hierarchical, CODASYL, Relational etc.[2] Since then, languages for information models have continued to evolve. Some examples are the Integrated Definition Language 1 Extended (IDEF1X), the EXPRESS language and the Unified Modeling Language (UML).[1]

Research by contemporaries of Peter Chen such as J.R.Abrial (1974) and G.M Nijssen (1976) led to today's Fact Oriented Modeling (FOM) languages which are based on linguistic propositions rather than on "entities". FOM tools can be used to generate an ER model which means that the modeler can avoid the time-consuming and error prone practice of manual normalization. Object-Role Modeling language (ORM) and Fully Communication Oriented Information Modeling (FCO-IM) are both research results developed in the early 1990s, based upon earlier research.

In the 1980s there were several approaches to extend Chen’s Entity Relationship Model. Also important in this decade is REMORA by Colette Rolland.[3]

The ICAM Definition (IDEF) Language was developed from the U.S. Air Force ICAM Program during the 1976 to 1982 timeframe.[4] The objective of the ICAM Program, according to Lee (1999), was to increase manufacturing productivity through the systematic application of computer technology. IDEF includes three different modeling methods: IDEF0, IDEF1, and IDEF2 for producing a functional model, an information model, and a dynamic model respectively. IDEF1X is an extended version of IDEF1. The language is in the public domain. It is a graphical representation and is designed using the ER approach and the relational theory. It is used to represent the “real world” in terms of entities, attributes, and relationships between entities. Normalization is enforced by KEY Structures and KEY Migration. The language identifies property groupings (Aggregation) to form complete entity definitions.[1]

EXPRESS was created as ISO 10303-11 for formally specifying information requirements of product data model. It is part of a suite of standards informally known as the STandard for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP). It was first introduced in the early 1990s.[5][6] The language, according to Lee (1999), is a textual representation. In addition, a graphical subset of EXPRESS called EXPRESS-G is available. EXPRESS is based on programming languages and the O-O paradigm. A number of languages have contributed to EXPRESS. In particular, Ada, Algol, C, C++, Euler, Modula-2, Pascal, PL/1, and SQL. EXPRESS consists of language elements that allow an unambiguous object definition and specification of constraints on the objects defined. It uses SCHEMA declaration to provide partitioning and it supports specification of data properties, constraints, and operations.[1]

Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a modeling language for specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts, rather than processes, of software systems. It was conceived originally by Grady Booch, James Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson. UML was approved by the Object Management Group (OMG) as a standard in 1997. The language, according to Lee (1999), is non-proprietary and is available to the public. It is a graphical representation. The language is based on the objected-oriented paradigm. UML contains notations and rules and is designed to represent data requirements in terms of O-O diagrams. UML organizes a model in a number of views that present different aspects of a system. The contents of a view are described in diagrams that are graphs with model elements. A diagram contains model elements that represent common O-O concepts such as classes, objects, messages, and relationships among these concepts.[1]

IDEF1X, EXPRESS, and UML all can be used to create a conceptual model and, according to Lee (1999), each has its own characteristics. Although some may lead to a natural usage (e.g., implementation), one is not necessarily better than another. In practice, it may require more than one language to develop all information models when an application is complex. In fact, the modeling practice is often more important than the language chosen.[1]

Information models can also be expressed in formalized natural languages, such as Gellish. Gellish, which has natural language variants Gellish Formal English, Gellish Formal Dutch (Gellish Formeel Nederlands), etc. is an information representation language or modeling language that is defined in the Gellish smart Dictionary-Taxonomy, which has the form of a Taxonomy/Ontology. A Gellish Database is not only suitable to store information models, but also knowledge models, requirements models and dictionaries, taxonomies and ontologies. Information models in Gellish English use Gellish Formal English expressions. For example, a geographic information model might consist of a number of Gellish Formal English expressions, such as: 

- the Eiffel tower <is located in> Paris
- Paris <is classified as a> city

whereas information requirements and knowledge can be expressed for example as follows: 

- tower <shall be located in a> geographical area
- city <is a kind of> geographical area

Such Gellish expressions use names of concepts (such as 'city') and relation types (such as ⟨is located in⟩ and ⟨is classified as a⟩) that should be selected from the Gellish Formal English Dictionary-Taxonomy (or of your own domain dictionary). The Gellish English Dictionary-Taxonomy enables the creation of semantically rich information models, because the dictionary contains definitions of more than 40000 concepts, including more than 600 standard relation types. Thus, an information model in Gellish consists of a collection of Gellish expressions that use those phrases and dictionary concepts to express facts or make statements, queries and answers.

Standard sets of information models

[edit]

The Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) provides a standard set of information models for various enterprise domains under the general title of the Common Information Model (CIM). Specific information models are derived from CIM for particular management domains.

The TeleManagement Forum (TMF) has defined an advanced model for the Telecommunication domain (the Shared Information/Data model, or SID) as another. This includes views from the business, service and resource domains within the Telecommunication industry. The TMF has established a set of principles that an OSS integration should adopt, along with a set of models that provide standardized approaches.

The models interact with the information model (the Shared Information/Data Model, or SID), via a process model (the Business Process Framework (eTOM), or eTOM) and a life cycle model.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Information model

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An information model is a formal representation of concepts, relationships, constraints, rules, and operations that specifies the semantics of data within a chosen domain of discourse, providing an abstract framework independent of specific technologies or implementations. Information models serve as foundational tools in computer science and information systems engineering, enabling the unambiguous description of information requirements to facilitate data sharing, interoperability, and efficient management across networked environments. They are typically developed using standardized modeling languages such as UML (Unified Modeling Language) or entity-relationship diagrams, which help organize real-world entities, their attributes, and interdependencies into structured formats. Key purposes include defining data structures for storage and retrieval, supporting system integration in domains like manufacturing and utilities, and ensuring consistent behavior in distributed systems. For instance, models like the Common Information Model (CIM) provide standardized definitions for management information in IT and enterprise settings, promoting vendor-neutral data exchange. Information models are generally classified into three levels: conceptual, which offers a high-level view of information needs without implementation details; logical, which details data relationships and semantics in a technology-agnostic structure; and physical, which specifies implementation-specific aspects for or applications. This hierarchical approach allows for progressive refinement from abstract requirements to practical deployment, often incorporating meta-models and common data dictionaries to enhance reusability and precision. In standards bodies such as IEC and ISO, information modeling emphasizes hierarchical organization with metadata like data types and value ranges to support machine-readable . Applications span diverse fields, including statistical data exchange via frameworks and in sectors like insurance and energy.

Fundamentals

Definition

An information model is a structured representation of concepts, entities, relationships, constraints, rules, and operations designed to specify the semantics of within a particular domain or application. This representation serves as a blueprint for understanding and communicating the meaning of , independent of any specific or implementation details. Key characteristics of an information model include its abstract nature, which allows for an implementation-independent structure that can be realized using various technologies, and its emphasis on defining what information is required rather than how it is stored, processed, or retrieved. By focusing on semantics, these models enable consistent interpretation of data across systems and stakeholders, facilitating interoperability and shared understanding without delving into technical storage mechanisms. In contrast to data models, which concentrate on the physical implementation—such as database schemas, tables, and storage optimization—information models prioritize the conceptual semantics and underlying business rules that govern the data. This distinction ensures that information models remain at a higher level of , serving as a foundation for deriving more implementation-specific data models. For example, a healthcare information model might define entities like , , and treatments, along with their interrelationships and constraints (e.g., a must be linked to a record), without specifying underlying database structures or query languages.

Purpose and Benefits

models serve as foundational tools in , primarily to facilitate clear communication among diverse stakeholders by providing a shared, unambiguous representation of requirements and structures. This shared understanding bridges gaps between business analysts, developers, and end-users, ensuring that all parties align on the semantics and scope of the system from the outset. Additionally, they ensure consistency across applications by enforcing standardized definitions and constraints, support between heterogeneous systems through compatible exchange formats, and guide the progression from high-level requirements to concrete by mapping conceptual needs to technical specifications. The benefits of employing information models extend to practical efficiencies in system development and operation. By reducing ambiguity during requirements gathering, these models minimize misinterpretations that could lead to costly rework, fostering a more precise articulation of business rules and data flows. They enable reuse of established models and components across multiple projects, accelerating development cycles and promoting consistency in data handling. Furthermore, information models enhance by incorporating enforced semantics—such as defined relationships and validation rules—that prevent inconsistencies and errors in data entry and processing, ultimately lowering long-term maintenance costs through more robust, extensible architectures. Quantitative evidence underscores these advantages; for instance, studies on standardized information modeling approaches, such as those in (BIM) applications, demonstrate up to 30% reductions in overall development time due to streamlined design and integration processes. In broader information systems contexts, data models have enabled up to 10-fold faster implementation of complex logic components compared to traditional methods without such modeling. In agile methodologies, information models support iterative refinement of business rules by allowing flexible updates to the model without disrupting core data structures, thereby maintaining adaptability while preserving underlying integrity.

Historical Development

Origins in Data Management

The origins of information models can be traced to pre-digital efforts in organizing knowledge, such as the system developed by in 1876, which provided an analog framework for semantic categorization by assigning hierarchical numerical codes to subjects, thereby enabling systematic retrieval and representation of informational structures. This approach laid early groundwork for abstracting data meanings independent of physical formats, influencing later computational paradigms. In the , the limitations of traditional file systems—characterized by sequential storage on tapes or disks, high redundancy, and tight coupling to physical hardware—prompted the emergence of structured to abstract logical representations from underlying storage, facilitating data portability and independence. This transition was exemplified by 's Information Management System (IMS), released in 1968, which introduced a hierarchical model organizing data into tree-like parent-child relationships to represent complex structures efficiently for applications like NASA's . Concurrently, the Conference on Data Systems Languages () Database Task Group published specifications in 1969 for the network model, allowing more flexible many-to-many relationships between record types and building on Charles Bachman's Integrated Data Store (IDS) concepts to enhance navigational data access. A pivotal advancement came in 1970 with Edgar F. Codd's seminal paper, "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks," which proposed representing data through (tables) with tuples and attributes, emphasizing to separate user views from physical and incorporating semantic structures via keys and normalization to minimize . This model shifted focus toward declarative querying over procedural navigation, establishing foundational principles for information models that prioritized conceptual clarity and scalability in database systems.

Evolution in Computing Standards

The , developed in the late 1970s and formalized through the 1980s, established a foundational three-level modeling framework for database systems—comprising the external (user view), conceptual (logical structure), and internal (physical storage) schemas—that significantly influenced the standardization of models by promoting and abstraction. This architecture, outlined in the 1977 report of the ANSI/X3/SPARC , provided a blueprint for separating conceptual representations of data from implementation details, enabling more robust and portable modeling practices in standards. Its adoption in early database management systems helped transition models from ad-hoc designs to structured, standardized approaches that supported across diverse hardware and software environments. In the , the rise of object-oriented paradigms marked a pivotal shift in modeling, with the Object Data Management Group (ODMG) releasing its first standard, ODMG-93, which integrated semantic richness into database and by defining a common object model, (ODL), and bindings for languages like C++ and Smalltalk. This standard addressed limitations of relational models by incorporating , encapsulation, and complex relationships, fostering the development of object-oriented database management systems (OODBMS) that treated models as integral to application development. ODMG's emphasis on portability and semantics influenced subsequent standards, bridging the gap between data persistence and paradigms in enterprise computing. The 2000s saw information models evolve further through the proliferation of XML for data exchange and the emergence of web services, which paved the way for initiatives; notably, the W3C's (RDF), recommended in 1999, provided a graph-based model for representing metadata and relationships in a machine-readable format, enhancing on the web. Building on RDF, the (OWL), standardized by W3C in 2004, extended information modeling capabilities with formal semantics for defining classes, properties, and inferences, enabling more expressive and reasoning-capable ontologies. These developments, rooted in XML's structured syntax, transformed information models from isolated database schemas into interconnected, web-scale frameworks that supported automated knowledge discovery and integration across distributed systems. As of 2025, recent advancements have integrated techniques into information modeling, particularly through tools like Protégé for . Protégé, originally developed at , supports plugins that enable AI-assisted development and enrichment of ontologies, such as generating terms and relationships from data sources. This integration aligns with broader standards efforts, including those from W3C, to ensure AI-enhanced models maintain compatibility and verifiability, with applications in domains like .

Core Components

Entities and Attributes

In information modeling, entities represent the fundamental objects or concepts within a domain that capture essential aspects of the real world or abstract structures. An entity is defined as a "thing" which can be distinctly identified, such as a specific , , or event. These entities are typically nouns in the , like "" in a (CRM) system, and they form the primary subjects about which information is stored and managed. Entities are distinguishable through unique identifiers, often called keys, which ensure each instance can be referenced independently. Attributes are the descriptive properties or characteristics that provide detailed about , specifying what can be associated with each instance. Formally, an attribute is a function that maps from an entity set into a value set or a of value sets, such as mapping a person's name to a of name values. Attributes include elements like customer ID (an ), name (a ), and address (a composite ), with specifications for (e.g., , , date), (indicating whether single-valued or multivalued), and optionality (whether the attribute must have a value or can be null). These properties ensure attributes accurately reflect the semantics of the domain while supporting and query efficiency. Attributes are classified into several types based on their structure and derivation. Simple attributes are atomic and indivisible, such as a customer's ID or age, holding a single, basic value without subcomponents. In contrast, complex (or composite) attributes consist of multiple subparts that can be further subdivided, like an address composed of street, city, state, and . Derived attributes are not stored directly but computed from other attributes or , such as age derived from birthdate using the current date, which avoids redundancy while providing dynamic values. Multivalued attributes, like a customer's multiple phone numbers, allow an entity to hold a set of values for the same property. A representative example is a information model featuring a "" entity. This entity might include attributes such as (a simple, single-valued key attribute of string type, mandatory), (simple, single-valued string, mandatory), author (composite, potentially multivalued to handle co-authors, optional for anonymous works), and publication year (simple, single-valued integer, mandatory). In a basic entity-relationship sketch, the "" entity would be depicted as a labeled "Book," with ovals connected by lines representing attributes like , , and author, illustrating how these properties describe individual book instances without detailing inter-entity connections.

Relationships and Constraints

In information models, relationships define the interconnections between , specifying how instances of one entity set associate with instances of another. These relationships are categorized by , which indicates the number of instances that can participate on each side. A one-to-one relationship occurs when exactly one instance of an entity set is associated with exactly one instance of another entity set, such as a linking two persons where each is paired solely with the other. One-to-many relationships allow one instance of an entity set to relate to multiple instances of another, but not vice versa; for example, a department may employ multiple workers, while each worker belongs to only one department. Many-to-many relationships permit multiple instances on both sides, as seen when customers place orders for multiple products, and each product appears in multiple customer orders. To resolve many-to-many relationships while accommodating additional attributes on the association itself, are introduced. These entities act as intermediaries, transforming the many-to-many link into two one-to-many relationships and enabling the storage of descriptive data about the connection. For instance, in an system, an "order details" associative entity links customers and products, capturing attributes like quantity and price for each specific item in an order. Constraints in information models enforce rules that maintain and consistency across relationships and entities. Referential integrity ensures that a value in one references a valid value in a related , preventing orphaned records; for example, an order's customer ID must match an existing . Uniqueness constraints, part of entity integrity, require that uniquely identify each instance and prohibit null values in those keys, guaranteeing no duplicates or incomplete identifiers. Business rules impose domain-specific conditions, such as requiring an employee's age to exceed 18 for eligibility in certain roles, which are checked to align data with organizational policies. Semantic constraints extend these by incorporating and contextual rules, often addressing complex scenarios like . Temporal constraints, for example, use valid-from and valid-to dates to define the lifespan of entity relationships or attributes, ensuring that historical versions of data remain accurate without overwriting current states; this is crucial in models tracking changes over time, such as employee assignments to projects. These constraints collectively safeguard the model's semantic fidelity, preventing invalid states that could arise from ad-hoc updates.

Modeling Languages and Techniques

Conceptual Modeling Approaches

Conceptual modeling approaches encompass high-level, informal techniques employed in the initial phases of information model development to capture and structure without delving into formal syntax or implementation details. These methods prioritize and to elicit key concepts, ensuring the model reflects real-world semantics accurately. Common approaches include brainstorming sessions, analysis, and domain storytelling, each facilitating the identification of entities, relationships, and processes in an accessible manner. Brainstorming sessions involve group activities where participants generate ideas spontaneously to explore domain requirements, often using to map out potential entities and interactions. This technique supports system-level by identifying tensions and key drivers early, as demonstrated in industrial case studies from the energy sector where engineers used brainstorming to enhance awareness and communication in conceptual models. analysis focuses on describing business scenarios to pinpoint critical entities and their roles, starting from operational narratives to define the foundational elements of an information model. By analyzing how actors interact with the system to achieve goals, this method ensures the model aligns with business needs, forming a bridge to more detailed representations. Domain storytelling, a collaborative workshop-based technique, uses visual narratives with actors, work objects, and activities to depict concrete scenarios, thereby clarifying domain concepts and bridging gaps between experts and modelers. This approach excels in transforming into explicit models, as seen in contexts where it supports agile requirement elicitation. Key techniques within these approaches include top-down and bottom-up strategies for structuring the domain. The top-down method begins with broad, high-level domain overviews, progressively refining into specific concepts, which is effective for strategic alignment in enterprise modeling. In contrast, the bottom-up technique starts from concrete data instances or tasks, aggregating them into generalized entities, allowing for situated knowledge capture from operational levels. Tools such as mind mapping aid conceptualization by visually organizing ideas hierarchically around central themes, facilitating the connection of related concepts and simplifying domain exploration. This radial structure helps in brainstorming and initial entity identification, making complex information more digestible. For incorporating dynamic aspects, with BPMN can be integrated informally to outline event-driven behaviors alongside static entities, using flow diagrams to represent state changes and interactions without full formalization. This enhances the model's ability to capture temporal and causal relationships in information flows. Best practices emphasize iterative validation with stakeholders to ensure semantic accuracy, involving repeated workshops and feedback loops to refine concepts based on domain expertise. Such cycles, as applied in stakeholder-driven modeling for systems, build consensus and transparency, reducing misalignment risks before transitioning to formal languages.

Formal Languages and Notations

Formal languages and notations enable the precise and unambiguous specification of information models by providing standardized syntax for describing structures, semantics, and constraints. These tools bridge conceptual designs with implementable representations, facilitating communication among stakeholders and in software tools. Key examples include diagrammatic and textual approaches tailored to relational, object-oriented, and domain-specific needs. The Entity-Relationship (ER) model, proposed by Peter Chen in 1976, serves as a foundational notation for expressing relational semantics in information models. It represents entities as rectangles, attributes as ovals connected to entities, and relationships as diamonds linking entities, with constraints indicated by symbols on relationship lines. This visual notation emphasizes data-centric views, making it particularly effective for design where simplicity in relational structures is prioritized. Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams provide a versatile notation for object-oriented information models, as defined in the OMG UML specification. Classes are depicted as boxes with compartments for attributes, operations, and methods; associations are lines connecting classes, often with multiplicity indicators; and generalizations enable inheritance hierarchies. UML class diagrams extend beyond basic relations to include behavioral elements, supporting comprehensive software system modeling. Other notable notations include EXPRESS, a formal textual language standardized in ISO 10303-11 for defining product data models in manufacturing and engineering contexts. EXPRESS supports declarative schemas with entities, types, rules, and functions, allowing machine-interpretable representations without graphical elements. Object-Role Modeling (ORM), developed by Terry Halpin, employs a fact-based approach using textual verbalizations and optional diagrams to model information as elementary facts, emphasizing readability and constraint declaration through roles and predicates. These notations commonly incorporate features such as for subtype hierarchies, aggregation for part-whole relations without ownership, and composition for stronger ownership semantics, as prominently supported in UML class diagrams. Visual representations, like those in ER and UML, aid human interpretation through diagrams, while textual formats like EXPRESS enable precise, computable specifications suitable for exchange standards.
NotationProsCons
ER ModelSimpler syntax focused on relational data; easier for database designers to learn and apply in data-centric tasks.Limited support for behavioral aspects and complex object hierarchies; less adaptable to beyond databases.
UML Class DiagramsBroader applicability to object-oriented systems; integrates structural and with rich semantics like inheritance and operations.Steeper learning curve due to extensive features; potential for over-complexity in pure data modeling scenarios.

Standards and Frameworks

International Standards

The (ISO) and the (IEC) have developed key standards for information models, emphasizing metadata management and interoperability. ISO/IEC 11179, first published in 1999 with its second edition in 2004 and updated to its fourth edition in 2023, defines a framework for metadata registries (MDRs) that standardizes the semantics of data elements to ensure consistent representation and sharing across systems. This multi-part standard includes specifications for conceptual data models (Part 3) and registration procedures (Part 6), enabling organizations to register and govern metadata for enhanced data understandability. Complementing this, ISO/IEC 19763, known as the Metamodel Framework for Interoperability (MFI) and revised in 2023 for its framework component (Part 1), provides a series of metamodels to register and map diverse models, including ontologies and process models, facilitating semantic alignment between heterogeneous systems. Other international bodies have contributed foundational and evolving frameworks for information modeling. In the 1980s, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) advanced Information Resource Management (IRM) through publications like Special Publication 500-92, which outlined strategies for managing information as a strategic asset, influencing modern data governance practices. This evolved into contemporary NIST frameworks that support interoperable information systems. Additionally, the (W3C) introduced (RDFS) in 2004, with updates to version 1.1 in 2014 and RDF 1.2 in 2025, offering a for describing RDF-based data models on the web, enabling extensible schemas for and applications. These standards promote cross-system compatibility by providing neutral, reusable structures for defining entities, relationships, and semantics, reducing integration barriers in diverse environments. For instance, the (HL7) (FHIR), initiated in 2011, leverages modular resource-based information models aligned with ISO principles to enable seamless exchange of healthcare data across systems worldwide. As of 2025, emerging developments integrate technology with these semantic models to enhance security and immutability, such as through encodings in smart contracts for verifiable , as explored in recent research on semantic frameworks.

Industry-Specific Models

Industry-specific models are tailored conceptual frameworks designed to address the unique data requirements, processes, and regulatory demands of particular sectors, enabling standardized representation and exchange of domain-specific . These models extend general standards by incorporating sector-unique entities, relationships, and semantics, facilitating among systems and stakeholders within vertical industries such as , , , and healthcare. In the sector, the Common Information Model (CIM), developed by the (DMTF) starting in 1997, serves as a foundational object-oriented for representing managed elements like hardware, software, and networks in enterprise environments. CIM provides a vendor-neutral vocabulary and structure for management, supporting protocols like Web-Based Enterprise Management (WBEM) to enable consistent across diverse systems. For the insurance industry, the Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development (), established in 1970, develops standards for electronic data exchange, including XML-based models that define core entities such as policies, claims, and parties involved in insurance transactions. These standards promote efficient, automated workflows by standardizing data formats for property, casualty, life, and operations, reducing errors in inter-company communications. In the financial sector, , first published in by the (ISO), establishes a universal messaging standard for payments and securities, using a to define structured semantics for transactions, including remittance details and party identifications. This model supports rich, extensible data exchange across global payment systems, enhancing automation and reducing reconciliation issues in cross-border finance. The healthcare domain relies on , released in 2002 through the merger of SNOMED RT and the UK's Clinical Terms Version 3, as a comprehensive, multilingual clinical terminology model maintained by SNOMED International. SNOMED CT organizes medical concepts hierarchically, covering diagnoses, procedures, and , to support electronic health records and clinical decision-making with precise, coded representations. These sector-specific models deliver benefits such as improved and by embedding domain rules and privacy controls; for instance, in the , adaptations of models like in healthcare and in finance align with GDPR requirements for secure handling of , ensuring management and minimization principles are integrated into data flows.

Applications and Use Cases

Database Design

Information models provide the foundational blueprint for database design, enabling the systematic transformation of abstract business requirements into efficient, scalable database schemas. The mapping process starts with the conceptual information model, which identifies core entities, attributes, and relationships without regard to specific database technology, serving as a high-level abstraction of the data domain. This model is then refined into a logical data model, where entities become tables, attributes translate to columns with defined data types, and relationships are implemented as primary and foreign keys, ensuring referential integrity. The logical model addresses implementation-agnostic structures, such as normalization rules derived from the conceptual constraints, before advancing to the physical data model. In the physical design phase, the information model informs optimizations like indexing strategies on frequently queried attributes and partitioning schemes based on relationship cardinalities, which enhance and manage large-scale volumes. For example, indexes may be applied to foreign keys representing many-to-one relationships to accelerate joins, while storage allocations align with entity volumes projected from the model. This iterative mapping ensures that the resulting remains faithful to the original information model while adapting to hardware and software constraints, such as those in management systems (RDBMS). Tools facilitate this process by automating transformations, reducing manual errors and accelerating development cycles. Normalization is a critical step in logical , directly informed by the constraints and dependencies outlined in the information model, to minimize and prevent anomalies during insert, update, or delete operations. (1NF) enforces atomicity by ensuring each attribute holds indivisible values and eliminates repeating groups, aligning with the model's definition of simple attributes. (2NF) builds on 1NF by removing partial dependencies, where non-key attributes depend only on the entire , often resolving issues in models with composite keys derived from entity relationships. (3NF) further eliminates transitive dependencies, ensuring non-key attributes depend solely on the , which preserves the integrity of attribute constraints from the . These forms collectively reduce storage overhead and support scalable querying, though higher forms like Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF) may be applied selectively for complex dependencies. Reverse engineering complements forward by deriving models from existing databases, particularly in legacy systems where is incomplete or outdated. This process involves analyzing physical schemas—such as table structures, constraints, and triggers—to reconstruct entities and relationships at the conceptual level, often using tools to infer business rules from data patterns and metadata. For legacy relational databases, techniques include extracting entity-relationship diagrams (ERDs) by identifying primary keys as entities and foreign keys as relationships, while handling denormalized tables through dependency analysis to propose normalized equivalents. In practice, this enables modernization efforts, such as migrating COBOL-based systems to modern RDBMS, by revealing hidden semantics without disrupting operations; studies indicate recovery of a significant portion of original intent in well-structured legacy databases. Challenges arise with poorly documented systems, where manual validation supplements to ensure the reconstructed model accurately reflects intended flows. Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools play a pivotal role in automating schema generation from information models, streamlining the mapping from conceptual to physical designs. ERwin Data Modeler, a widely adopted tool, supports forward engineering by generating DDL scripts directly from logical models, incorporating normalization checks and physical optimizations like index creation based on model annotations. Users define the conceptual model via ERDs, then use built-in wizards to produce database-specific schemas for platforms such as Oracle or SQL Server, with features for comparing models against existing databases to propagate changes. This automation not only enforces consistency with the information model but also integrates with version control, significantly reducing design time in enterprise environments. Other CASE tools follow similar paradigms, emphasizing bidirectional synchronization to maintain alignment between evolving models and deployed schemas.

Enterprise Architecture

In enterprise architecture, information models serve as foundational tools for aligning with organizational strategies, enabling the creation of coherent architectures that support and across large-scale enterprises. These models define the structure, semantics, and relationships of entities, ensuring that IT systems reflect business requirements and facilitate , , and . By providing a shared understanding of assets, they help organizations manage complexity in distributed environments, from legacy systems to cloud-native infrastructures. A prominent framework incorporating models is (TOGAF), whose content metamodel—evolving since the 1990s—utilizes these models to organize architectural artifacts such as views, deliverables, and building blocks. In TOGAF, models specify entities and relationships across domains like , , applications, and , promoting reuse and consistency in artifact development to bridge strategic goals with tactical implementations. This metamodel ensures that content is traceable and adaptable, supporting iterative enterprise transformations. Information models further enhance integration in (SOA) and by establishing shared semantics that enable seamless communication and interchangeability among components. In SOA, they define common data structures and interfaces to compose services into cohesive processes, while in , semantic models—often based on ontologies or RDF—address challenges in dynamic, containerized environments by clarifying service capabilities and data mappings. For instance, a semantic model can classify microservice instances and their clusters, allowing for modular deployment and fault-tolerant scaling without semantic mismatches. In large enterprises such as banks, information models support regulatory reporting compliance, exemplified by their application in adhering to frameworks through semantic approaches to and risk reporting. Under principles (integral to ), banks employ centralized data dictionaries and models to ensure data accuracy, timeliness, and auditability for risk calculations. A proposed validated with Portuguese banking executives outlines phases including and quality controls, demonstrating how semantic models unify disparate systems for compliant reporting while reducing manual reconciliation efforts. Adopting (MDA) approaches, which leverage information models, yields measurable returns on investment, including up to 30% improvements in development productivity and faster times, with ROI often achieved within 12 months. These gains stem from automated code generation and reduced rework in integrating components, allowing enterprises to accelerate deployment cycles and lower maintenance costs in complex IT landscapes. As of 2025, information models are increasingly applied in emerging areas such as AI-driven systems and semantic data layers, enabling advanced products and simplifying complex business problems through enhanced and .

Challenges and Future Directions

Current Limitations

One significant limitation in information modeling is scalability when applied to environments, where the , , and variety of can overwhelm traditional techniques, often requiring dimension reduction or regularization methods to maintain performance. Handling evolving semantics in dynamic domains poses another challenge, as semantic process models must adapt to changing meanings and contexts, leading to difficulties in label disambiguation, refactoring, and ensuring consistency between model elements and textual descriptions. In particular, ambiguous labels and the need to map evolving terms across fragments can result in incomplete or inconsistent representations, especially in rapidly changing fields like processes or AI-driven systems. Common pitfalls include over-abstraction, which often leads to poor usability by creating models that are too high-level or complex, causing misunderstandings among stakeholders and inefficiencies in implementation. For instance, mixing conceptual and physical modeling layers prematurely introduces unnecessary details, hindering clarity and . Similarly, integration conflicts between heterogeneous models exacerbate these issues, with semantic, structural, and syntactic discrepancies across data sources requiring extensive mapping and resolution efforts to avoid inconsistencies. Security gaps remain prevalent, particularly in modeling privacy constraints following the GDPR's enactment in 2018, where inadequate incorporation of data lifecycle tracking and can expose sensitive information to risks like unauthorized access or failure to support rights such as erasure. Many models fail to embed principles, leading to challenges in isolating and ensuring compliance in complex environments. Empirical evidence underscores these limitations; for example, the 2024 Trends in Data Management report by DATAVERSITY indicates that 68% of organizations grapple with data silos, which contribute to outdated or misaligned information models. These trends highlight the need for ongoing updates, with emerging semantic layers offering potential mitigations as explored in future directions. One prominent emerging trend in information modeling is the integration of , particularly techniques that automate the generation of models from inputs. Tools such as Knowledge Catalog employ pretrained foundation models, including fine-tuned versions like granite-8b and , to enrich assets with AI-generated descriptions, terms, and metadata alignments derived from contextual text. This approach facilitates discovery and governance by expanding asset names and assigning semantic terms with high accuracy, even without exact matches, thereby streamlining the creation of information models for AI-driven applications. Semantic technologies are advancing through the proliferation of knowledge graphs, which have evolved from static structures like Google's 2012 to dynamic, multimodal models that incorporate text, images, and other types. As of 2025, these graphs enable enhanced reasoning and integration in AI systems, as seen in frameworks that synergize multimodal temporal knowledge graphs with large language models to handle complex, real-world scenarios such as life sciences applications. Google's , for instance, experienced 2.79% growth from 2024 to mid-2025 but underwent a significant "clarity cleanup" in June 2025, removing over 3 billion entities (a 6.26% contraction) to improve quality and AI-powered search accuracy through refined entity resolution. This evolution addresses limitations in traditional graphs by fusing diverse modalities for richer semantic representations. Blockchain and decentralized models are gaining traction for ensuring tamper-proof semantics in supply chains, leveraging distributed ledgers to create immutable records of flows. Semantic-enhanced platforms facilitate flexible object discovery and by validating smart contracts through consensus, allowing stakeholders to verify without central authorities. In contexts, this technology reconstructs sharing architectures to prevent tampering, as demonstrated in frameworks that use hash chains for secure, transparent data exchange across multi-tier operations. Looking ahead, forecasts that by 2030, 75% of work, including information modeling tasks, will be done by humans augmented with AI (with 25% done by AI alone and 0% without AI), underscoring the shift toward collaborative modeling paradigms, where AI handles and humans provide oversight, potentially transforming adoption rates in enterprise environments.

References

  1. https://docs.oasis-open.org/openc2/imjadn/v1.0/cn01/imjadn-v1.0-cn01.html
  2. https://www.nist.gov/publications/information-modeling-design-implementation
  3. https://tc3.iec.ch/tc-activity/information-modeling/
  4. https://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/information-model
  6. https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/SDMX_2-1_SECTION_2_InformationModel_2020-07.pdf
  7. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/IR/nistir6382.pdf
  8. https://enterprise-architecture.org/university/information-and-data-modelling/
  9. https://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoD-Architecture-Framework/dodaf20_info_data/
  10. https://docs.snomed.org/implementation-guides/context-representation-implementation-guide/2-terminology-and-information-models-in-healthcare/2.1-information-models-in-healthcare
  11. https://www.dataversity.net/articles/data-models-many-benefits-10/
  12. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1743/
  13. https://www.sandhill.co.uk/articles/data-modelling-in-an-agile-world/
  14. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2009/mitchell-dvg-elis.pdf
  15. https://www.dataversity.net/articles/brief-history-data-modeling/
  16. https://www.ibm.com/history/information-management-system
  17. https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/how-charles-bachman-invented-the-dbms-a-foundation-of-our-digital-world/
  18. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/362384.362685
  19. https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/
  20. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  21. https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/16365
  22. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/320434.320440
  23. https://cse.iitkgp.ac.in/~ksrao/pdf/dbms-22/ch6.pdf
  24. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/47432/entityrelationshx00chen.pdf
  25. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/iiw/8.9.2?topic=elements-associative-entity
  26. https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zives/03f/cis550/codd.pdf
  27. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_29
  28. https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sys.21649
  29. https://www.ewsolutions.com/conceptual-data-modeling-starts-with-business-use-cases/
  30. https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780137458912/samplepages/9780137458912_Sample.pdf
  31. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1859/emmsad-04-paper.pdf
  32. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/cognitive-mind-concept/
  33. https://articles.jsime.org/1/1/Modeling-for-Simulation-Part-I
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11142612/
  35. https://www.iso.org/standard/38047.html
  36. https://www.orm.net/pdf/ORMwhitePaper.pdf
  37. https://www.iso.org/standard/78914.html
  38. https://www.iso.org/standard/78915.html
  39. https://www.iso.org/standard/84749.html
  40. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nbsspecialpublication500-92.pdf
  41. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8367140/
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720925000478
  44. https://www.acord.org/standards-architecture/acord-data-standards
  45. https://www.dmtf.org/news/pr/2007/12/dmtf-common-information-model-achieves-10-years-open-standard
  46. https://www.acord.org/ACORD-about/ACORD-About
  47. http://www.iso20022.org/about-iso-20022
  48. https://www.iso.org/standard/55005.html
  49. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/healthit/snomedct/snomed_overview.html
  50. https://www.snomed.org/
  51. https://digitalhealthuptake.eu/resource/data-privacy-and-security-in-eu-digital-health/
  52. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en
  53. https://www.couchbase.com/blog/conceptual-physical-logical-data-models/
  54. https://aws.amazon.com/compare/the-difference-between-logical-and-physical-data-model/
  55. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-modeling
  56. https://www.visual-paradigm.com/support/documents/vpuserguide/3563/3564/85378_conceptual%2Cl.html
  57. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/database-normalization
  58. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dbms/normal-forms-in-dbms/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164121207001781
  60. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5328623/
  61. https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2017/62715/62715.pdf
  62. https://www.quest.com/products/erwin-data-modeler/
  63. https://bookshelf.erwin.com/bookshelf/public_html/2019R2/Content/User%2520Guides/erwin%2520Help/foward_engineering_schema_generation.html
  64. https://ftpdocs.broadcom.com/cadocs/0/e002953e.pdf
  65. https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap30.html
  66. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/12/1/40
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9193912/
  68. https://www.omg.org/mda/mda_files/SuccesStory_DC_TSS_MDO_English.pdf
  69. https://www.dataversity.net/articles/data-modeling-trends-in-2025-simplifying-complex-business-problems/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4236847/
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277596741_25_Challenges_of_Semantic_Process_Modeling
  72. https://www.datapro.news/p/10-ways-data-modelling-can-go-wrong
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340924008175
  74. https://www.lonti.com/blog/data-models-and-gdpr-compliance
  75. https://content.dataversity.net/rs/656-WMW-918/images/DATAVERSITY_WP_Trends_DM_2024.pdf
  76. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/software-hub/5.1.x?topic=services-knowledge-catalog
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1566253525001976
  78. https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.224.pdf
  79. https://searchengineland.com/google-great-clarity-cleanup-knowledge-graph-ai-future-460836
  80. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3131672.3136974
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09619-2
  82. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-10-20-gartner-survey-finds-all-it-work-will-involve-ai-by-2030-organizations-must-navigate-ai-readiness-and-human-readiness-to-find-capture-and-sustain-value
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.