Talk:Object–role modeling

message: 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:
* Text about ER modelling here does is related to ORM
* Halpin's Work at Microsoft was self published at Microsoft, and constitutes 'original research'.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to Entity-Relationship modeling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with term "Fact"  

message: 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:
* 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.
Jojalozzo 05:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many external links 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, 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)
thread_title: Survey