Notation | Comments |
| IE | The IE notation (Finkelstein 1989) is simple and easy to read, and is well suited for high-level logical and enterprise data modeling. The only drawback of this notation, arguably an advantage, is that it does not support the identification of attributes of an entity. The assumption is that the attributes will be modeled with another diagram or simply described in the supporting documentation. |
| Barker | The Barker notation is one of the more popular ones, it is supported by Oracle’s toolset, and is well suited for all types of data models. It’s approach to subtyping can become clunky with hierarchies that go several levels deep. |
| IDEF1X | This notation is overly complex. It was originally intended for physical modeling but has been misapplied for logical modeling as well. Although popular within some U.S. government agencies, particularly the Department of Defense (DoD), this notation has been all but abandoned by everyone else. Avoid it if you can. |
| UML | This is not an official data modeling notation (yet). Although several suggestions for a data modeling profile for the UML exist, none are complete and more importantly are not “official” UML yet. However, the Object Management Group (OMG) in December 2005 announced an RFP for data-oriented models. |
Discussing common data modeling notations.
