Related
I think we agree that there is a correspondance between composition and delete cascading on one side and aggregation and nullify on delete on the other, in case we delete the whole instance in a whole / part relationship.
But what if there is no whole / part relationship between two classes:
I understand that we can only use composition and aggregation in cases where the whole / part hierarchy occurs: Car - Wheels, Apartment - Rooms and not in cases where this hierarchy does not occurs (e.g. Car - Driver classes).
So, how should we represent in UML this situation where there are deletion consequences in the database (nullify or cascading) but no "whole / part" relation?
Do we agree on the initial assumption?
The UML literature frequently refers to part-whole relationships regarding aggregation/composition. However, the definitions in the UML standard have evolved (see UML 2.5.1):
Sometimes a Property is used to model circumstances in which one instance is used to group together a set of instances; this is called aggregation. (...)
Shared: Indicates that the Property has shared aggregation semantics. Precise semantics of shared aggregation varies by application area and modeler.
Composite: Indicates that the Property is aggregated compositely, i.e., the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage of the composed objects.
Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part object be included in at most one composite object at a time. If a composite object is deleted, all of its part instances that are objects are deleted with it.
In other words, there is no precise semantic specified for the "aggregation" (i.e. shared aggregation) that would make a difference from a simple association: shared aggregation is a modeling placebo.
The relationship between database constraints and UML modeling are therefore not as straightforward as you would assume.
Close match?
Moreover, there is no general one-to-one mapping between a database schema and an UML model. More than one database schema could be used to implement the same UML class diagram. And conversely, more than one UML diagram may represent the design that is implemented by a given database schema. So the best we can do here, is to consider close-matches.
In your database, the table with the FOREIGN KEY constraint would correspond to a potential component in a composition, or an element of a shared aggregation, or an associated instance in a simple association :
a ON DELETE CASCADE could help to implement a composite aggregation: it's the only way in SQL to implement the kind of lifecycle management that you would expect in a composition: the components would be deleted when the composite is. It could as well implement an ordinary association, if some business rules/contracts (e.g. UML post conditions) would require such a related deletion.
a ON DELETE SET NULL could help to implement a shared aggregation, if its smeantics would be defined as you mean: if the aggregate is deleted, its elements would not be deleted, and could therefore be shared. But it could as well implement any ordinary association, since the deletion of an associated instance would not trigger a deletion either and the constraint would allow to maintain a clean referential integrity.
I agree, that composition means cascading delete, because according to UML the whole is responsible for the existence of the parts. A normal association means, you can delete any object without affecting any other objects that might have a link to it. UML doesn't define semantics for aggregation, so they will behave in the same way. But even if we take into account domain specific semantics for aggregation, I don't think there are examples where this is changed.
However, if you have an association with a multiplicity of 1 on one end, you cannot delete the object on this end, because the objects that have been linked to it would be invalid afterwards. This has nothing to do with composition or aggregation.
So, the remaining question is, how to express cascading delete if there is no whole-part relationship? Are there really examples where this happens? I don't see that Car - Driver, could not be in a whole-part relationship. Please bear in mind, that we are not talking about real cars or real people. We are talking about a software system that we want to represent knowledge about the real world for a specific purpose. And if the purpose is to issue boarding cards for cars and their drivers on a ferry, it makes perfect sense to view them as a composition.
This is more of a notation and 'proper procedure' type of question than anything.
Please see below an image of a few relations in my Enhanced ERD logical model. A patient can be an OUTPATIENT or a RESIDENT, but there are no attributes which are specific to OUTPATIENTS or RESIDENTS. There are relationships which are specific to the subtypes though, as only OUTPATIENTS can be associated with visits and only RESIDENTs can be associated with beds.
I am in the process of converting this to a physical data model. Obviously it makes sense to not have OUTPATIENT or RESIDENT tables and only a PATIENT table which contains a discriminator for the type of patient.
But what is the proper way to model this?
How do I now model the relationships to VISITS and BEDS while still maintaining the constraint that the discriminator must be of a certain value to qualify for those relationships?
Do I just forget about representing this constraint in the physical data model and make sure its implemented in the code when the tables are created?
Or is there a notation for physical data models which represents this type of constraint?
Section of CareCenter schema in Extended ERD
I have done much searching and cannot seem to find anything about this. All of the material I have found talks about creating subtypes for the purpose of isolating attributes specific to a subtype and not relationships specific to a subtype.
Advice or reference to data you have found that I was not able to is greatly appreciated!
(If you are really trying to make sense of my section of EERD it may be helpful to know that PATIENT is a subtype of a PERSON supertype.)
1 Modelling & Notation
1.1 ERD
is pre-Relational, 1960’s. It cannot handle Relational Keys, which means it is hopeless for Relational Data Modelling. In the Relational paradigm, the Relational Key (which is composite) is central, therefore the identity of each entity cannot be analysed, or modelled, or defined, in ERD.
There is no definition in ERD for the Relational concepts of Independent/Dependent tables, or Identifying/Non-Identifying relations, as it is meaningless without a Relational Key, which leads to much confusion when extending ERD and attempting to add those. Further, as you have found, it has no notation of Domain/Datatype; Subtype; etc.
ERD never was a Standard. Since it is un-useable, each person who attempts to use it for an SQL implementation has to “extend” ERD, and that results in a million notations, all of which are different and incomplete. And which have to be explained to the reader. Whereas a Standard needs no explanation because it is complete and documented, once.
Technically, ERD is not a model (which implies a mathematical, logical basis). The semantics are primitive and nowhere near complete. In fact, it is hopeless for modelling, period, even for pre-Relational filing systems.
1.2 IDEF1X
is the Standard for Relational Data Modelling, available since the 1980's, a Standard since 1993. As such it is complete, whereas an extended ERD will never be complete, no matter how much you extend it.
The academics and authors of "textbooks" are clueless: as evidenced, they are 50 years behind the industry (definition) and 40 years behind (implementation on SQL platforms). They are stuck in 1960's Record Filing Systems, which is physical, characterised by a RecordID, and they market it as "relational".
Whereas Codd's Relational Model is completely logical, with a mathematical foundation, and provides far more Integrity; Power; and Speed.
To use ERD at all, you have to extend it, using some private notation, as you have done. Instead of moving incrementally and painfully in the direction of IDEF1X, I suggest you just switch to it, and obtain the full benefit. You may find this IDEF1X Introduction useful.
1.3 Logical vs Physical Data Model
There is a lot of nonsense written about the distinction.
The Logical model simply progresses, in iterations, to the point where it is stable, and then it is the Physical, which can be implemented on a specific SQL platform. That is, there is no “convert” process.
In good Data Modelling tools, such as ERwin, it is one file, not two or three, and the Logical vs Physical is simply different views of that one file. Eg. Domain in the Logical is DataType in the Physical. The Physical is of course specific to the target platform, eg. BOOLEAN in one is BIT in another. If you are not using a Data Modelling tool, or using a poor one, sure, you will have separate files and you have to deal with the attendant synchronisation problems.
But what is the proper way to model this? How do I now model the relationships to visits and beds while still maintaining the constraint that the discriminator must be of a certain value to qualify for those relationships?
In this regard, the question is not about Logical vs Physical DM, all aspects re the question are implemented in both.
Yes, it is about notation. There is no notation problem, or difference (Logical vs Physical) in IDEF1X, because it is complete.
Do I just forget about representing this constraint in the physical data model
No, they are drawn in both, they are implemented in the DDL.
and make sure its implemented in the code when the tables are created?
If you use a Data Modelling tool, it squirts out SQL that is specific to the target platform. Otherwise, sure, you have to write your own DDL and make sure it is correct. In any case, the SQL is the same (not counting the difference in SQL flavours).
Caveat. The pretend SQLs (all freeware “sqls” and Oracle) are not SQL compliant, their use of the term is not correct. They cannot implement ordinary SQL features such as Constraints for Subtypes or ACID Transactions; etc.
Or is there a notation for physical data models which represents this type of constraint?
No, there is no difference in the notation in IDFE1X. Your question appears to be due to your extensions to ERD. First, the ERD is not useable for Relational data modelling, and cannot cope with Relational Keys or Subtypes. Second, your extensions, good as they may be, do not have the ordinary Relational notation that IDEF1X has. Again, just switch to IDEF1X.
2 Codd’s Relational Model
As distinct from the variety of primitive nonsense written by the academics and in textbooks, misleadingly marketed as “relational”.
2.1 Subtype
I have done much searching and cannot seem to find anything about this. All of the material I have found talks about creating subtypes for the purpose of isolating attributes specific to a subtype and not relationships specific to a subtype.
There is no problem at all with a Subtype that has no attributes, same as there is no problem at all with a row that has no attributes. Keep in mind that each entity is a Fact (one fact in one place), and the Fact is established by the Relational Key, to which the attributes are quite secondary (Codd’s 3NF properly understood). Thus Resident and OutPatient are discrete Facts, whether each Subtype has attributes or not; whether the Fact exists for supporting a Foreign Key or not, is a separate issue.
Advice or reference to data you have found that I was not able to is greatly appreciated
You may find this Subtype document useful. For examples, go to my profile, and look up any answers that interest you.
If you require even further detail, there is a long discourse regarding Subtypes and notation, that I had with the single academic who is trying to cross the great chasm between academia and reality in this field, who recently "found" IDEF1X from my data models. I use a corrected form of IDEF1X (it was written by an academic), using the pre-existing IEEE notation when it is more precise. The discourse goes into the whys and wherefores of the original IDEF1X vs the corrected form. It is long at 70 posts, and there is a document that summarises it. Just ask.
Obviously it makes sense to not have OUTPATIENT or RESIDENT tables and only a PATIENT table which contains a discriminator for the type of patient.
No. Each Subtype is a separate table, in the Logical models (first) and Physical (last), and the DDL. The physical is merely the implementation level of the Logical, you should not have anything in the Physical that is not in the Logical (you do not want to implement a thing that is not logical, not semantic; not Relational (which is absolutely logical, and unlimited).
Consider that the database may be expanded in the future, and you may have attributes in the Subtypes.
- If the cluster is Exclusive, the Basetype table must have a Discriminator.
- If it is Non-Exclusive, there is no Discriminator.
Supertype means something quite different, the academics use terms loosely and incorrectly. Eg. the notion of Superkey is hysterical, and anti-Relational.
2.2 Data Model
Here is the logical model in IDEF1X notation, showing attributes, not domains.
I have corrected a few errors: given the level of modelling that you have demonstrated, I don't think they need a full explanation.
Person Subtype is Non-Exclusive (no Discriminator)
Patient Subtype is Exclusive (needs a Discriminator)
That is to be used in your code to determine the Subtype, otherwise JOIN to the Subtype
Since Resident::Bed is 1::1, the attributes (Bed FK) can be located in Resident.
This treatment ensures that the Bed that a Patient may be assigned to, exists.
Consider:
When an OutPatient visits the CareCenter, is not the purpose to obtain a treatment of some kind, which must be recorded ?
Is not the treatment obtained under a Physician’s control, and shouldn’t the treatment details be recorded ?
Therefore an OutPatient obtains a Treatment, same as a Resident, and it is common, in the Basetype.
Visit can be eliminated
(again, whether the treatment is received by a Resident or OutPatient regards the Subtype).
The data model in a PDF.
2.3 Predicate
The Predicates can be read directly from the graphic model, the evaluation of such provides an excellent feedback loop to the modelling process. Please read them and verify.
Eg. the Predicate Each Bed accommodates 0-to-n Residents would cause a brawl that can be avoided.
Again, the academics and authors do not understand the Relational Model, and thus they are clueless about Predicates. For a good introduction, refer to Relational Table Naming Convention, the Relationship, Verb Phrase section at the top, and the Predicate section at the end.
2.4 Null
Nulls in a Relational database are a clear indication of a Normalisation error. I have removed them.
3 Outstanding
The academics and authors understand only 1960's physical Record Filing Systems (placed in an SQL container for convenience), thus they understand only Referential Integrity. They do not understand Codd's Relational Model, thus they cannot understand, and they cannot teach, Relational Integrity, which is logical, and provides far more data integrity than 50-year-obsolete filing systems.
Your model allows any Physician to treat any Patient, which is typical for a RFS, if you follow the literature, but sub-normal for Relational.
I doubt that that is what you want in a database. I think you want only the treating Physician, the ProviderNo to treat the Patient.
As the model progresses, you may wish to ensure that a Bed is assigned to one Resident only. I didn’t model it because I need to be told: is admission and bed assignment two administrative steps or one ?
Do you not require lookup tables for Speciality and TreatmentName ?
Data Modelling is an iterative exercise: it is only when a model is erected, and contemplated, that the issues are exposed, which leads to the next iteration.
I have created a database in Access and right know i have to write a report.
I know that the databasesystem has three forms of schemas: physical, conceptual and external.
Does the following ER diagram (by using the method normalization) belongs to the conceptual level?:
Or does this belong to the conceptual level?(incl. ref integrity):
As for the phisical schema, does this include the integrity rules?
The Three-level ANSI-SPARC Architecture aka three schema approach:
An external schema is the database (with metadata including constraints) as seen by some user, a view of the conceptual schema.
The conceptual schema is the database (with metatdata including constraints) per se, for an enterprise.
The internal schema is the implementation.
Typically an ER diagram would not considered detailed enough to be an external schema or conceptual schema.
You may be confusing these with Conceptual, logical and physical data models in data modeling. (Those very wiki links are themselves confused about ANSI/SPARC.)
A conceptual model is informal and/or incomplete. Eg an ER diagram.
A logical model is formal and in some sense complete and implementation independent. Eg approximately an ANSI/SPARC external or conceptual schema.
A physical model is implementation. Eg approximately an ANSI/SPARC internal schema.
However there is very little agreement about just how detailed and abstract logical and physical models are. Or for that matter conceptual models. Or how these models correspond to ANSI/SPARC schemas. Eg whether an arbitrary SQL index is internal/physical or can be part of a user's/DBA's external/internal/logical interface.
See What are Conceptual, Logical and Physical Data Models? and its link Conceptual, Logical, Physical: Clearing the Confusion.
From the point of view of the relational model and ANSI/SPARC, a logical model (external and conceptual schema/level) should completely describe tables and their columns, constraints and application meanings. But conceptual-logical-physical presentations generally reflect a poor understanding of the relational model.
So probably your ER model is a conceptual model among conceptual-logical-physical models. Although you could take it as a (partial) description of a logical model or external or conceptual schema. And maybe your assignment itself is confused.
You are going to have to refer to whatever definitions/references your client/instructor has given you for the assignment.
I'm doing a work about database, and now I need to show three different images, one image with the conceptual model, other with logical model and other with physical model of a database.
But Im here with some difficults to understand which image represents each model.
I'm looking for reliable information about this, but I find different answers and I'm a bit confused.
So I came here to see if you can help me.
I have below my three images, do you think I have the correct title for each image?
Conceptual model:
In conceptual model, I think that I neeed to put my tables with atributes but without relationships.
Logical Model:
In logical model, I think I need to put my tables with atributes, but now with my relationships.
Physical Model:
In physical model, I think I need to put my tables with atributes, but now with my relationships and also with foreign keys
A Conceptual Model (CM) is an informal representation of the business represented in a manner that is understood by users. It will consist of classes of entities with attributes and the business rules regarding these. It is often presented as Entity-Relationship Diagrams.
A Logical Model (LM) formalizes the CM into data structures and integrity constraints. it should include all the data structures and integrity constraints for the data (this is all constraints, not just that subset of constraints that are easily defined in most available database management systems). It is database management system agnostic.
The LM may be presented as a Relational Data Model (RDM). In which case all the data structures and integrity constraints will be formally represented only using mathematical relations.
A Physical Model (PM) is a representation of the LM on specific hardware and database management system. It may consist of information such as storage sizing and placement; access methods such as indexing; and distribution such as clustering or partitioning.
Using these definitions I would say that all you diagrams are versions of Conceptual Models; as they do not include all the integrity constraints for the data being managed and do not include any information regarding an implementation on specific hardware or database management system.
The conceptual/logical/physical layers have changed somewhat over the years, and also vary according to different schools of thought. The way I learned it, back in the 1980s was this:
The conceptual model summarizes the semantics of the data with reference to the subject matter. It is not bound to a relational implementation. The implementation could be in some sort of prerelational database, or even in classical files of records. You have entities, relationships, attributes, and domains. You also have business rules. That's about it. Like your summary, it's primarily for communication with users and other stakeholders. The idea is to pin down the requirements during the analysis phase.
The logical model is a preliminary design. It's bound to the relational model, but not to a specific DBMS. You have relations, tuples, attributes, and constraints. Relationships are implemented as foreign keys, sometimes requiring junction relations. I tended to use the terminology of tables, rows, and columns, instead of relations, tuples, and attributes, but that's mostly nomenclature. Normalization is relevant here.
The physical model is a detailed design. It's DBMS specific, and takes into account data volume, expected traffic, and performance. Denormalization is relevant here. This leads directly to a creation script.
This is by no means the majority view, let alone a general consensus. You need to understand your audience to see if this framewok works.
Is it a homework or what? The question seems so artificial...
The 3rd one is Physical because the data types are closer to actual DBMS data types.
Between the 1st, and 2nd ones... I'm stuck. The only difference is the crow-feet relationship. If there's a progression between the three images, I'd guess this would make the 2nd one the Conceptual.
But it is difficult because, with PowerDesigner, you could still represent the relationship with crow-feet in the Logical model. But anyway, there should be evidence of the migration of the "foreign key" attribute id_cat in the News entity, which is missing here.
Nope. I was reading my example diagrams too fast, there's no migration in Logical model.
So, just by elimination, I'd make the 1st one the Logical.
What is the difference between logical data model and conceptual data model?
In the conceptual data model you worry only about the high level design - what tables should exist and the connections between them. In this phase you recognize entities in your model and the relationships between them.
The logical model comes after the conceptual modeling when you explicitly define what the columns in each table are. While writing the logical model, you might also take into consideration the actual database system you're designing for, but only if it affects the design (i.e., if there are no triggers you might want to remove some redundancy column etc.)
There is also physical model which elaborates on the logical model and assigns each column with it's type/length etc.
Here is a good table and picture that describes each of the three levels.
|----------------------|------------|---------|----------|
| Feature | Conceptual | Logical | Physical |
|----------------------|------------|---------|----------|
| Entity Names | X | X | |
| Entity Relationships | X | X | |
| Attributes | | X | |
| Primary Keys | | X | X |
| Foreign Keys | | X | X |
| Table Names | | | X |
| Column Names | | | X |
| Column Data Types | | | X |
|----------------------|------------|---------|----------|
In this table you can see the difference between each model:
See http://www.1keydata.com/datawarehousing/data-modeling-levels.html for more information and some data model examples.
These terms are unfortunately overloaded with several possible definitions. According to the ANSI-SPARC "three schema" model for instance, the Conceptual Schema or Conceptual Model consists of the set of objects in a database (tables, views, etc) in contrast to the External Schema which are the objects that users see.
In the data management professions and especially among data modellers / architects, the term Conceptual Model is frequently used to mean a semantic model whereas the term Logical Model is used to mean a preliminary or virtual database design. This is probably the usage you are most likely to come across in the workplace.
In academic usage and when describing DBMS architectures however, the Logical level means the database objects (tables, views, tables, keys, constraints, etc), as distinct from the Physical level (files, indexes, storage). To confuse things further, in the workplace the term Physical model is often used to mean the design as implemented or planned for implementation in an actual database. That may include both "physical" and "logical" level constructs (both tables and indexes for example).
When you come across any of these terms you really need to seek clarification on what is being described unless the context makes it obvious.
For a discussion of these differences, check out Data Modelling Essentials by Simsion and Witt for example.
Logical Database Model
Logical database modeling is required for compiling business requirements and representing the requirements as a model. It is mainly associated with the gathering of business needs rather than the database design. The information that needs to be gathered is about organizational units, business entities, and business processes.
Once the information is compiled, reports and diagrams are made, including these:
ERD–Entity relationship diagram shows the relationship between different categories of data and shows the different categories of data required for the development of a database.
Business process diagram–It shows the activities of individuals within the company. It shows how the data moves within the organization based on which application interface can be designed.
Feedback documentation by users.
Logical database models basically determine if all the requirements of the business have been gathered. It is reviewed by developers, management, and finally the end users to see if more information needs to be gathered before physical modeling starts.
Physical Database Model
Physical database modeling deals with designing the actual database based on the requirements gathered during logical database modeling. All the information gathered is converted into relational models and business models. During physical modeling, objects are defined at a level called a schema level. A schema is considered a group of objects which are related to each other in a database.
Tables and columns are made according to the information provided during logical modeling. Primary keys, unique keys, and foreign keys are defined in order to provide constraints. Indexes and snapshots are defined. Data can be summarized, and users are provided with an alternative perspective once the tables have been created.
Physical database modeling depends upon the software already being used in the organization. It is software specific. Physical modeling includes:
Server model diagram–It includes tables and columns and different relationships that exist within a database.
Database design documentation.
Feedback documentation of users.
Summary:
1.Logical database modeling is mainly for gathering information about business needs and does not involve designing a database; whereas physical database modeling is mainly required for actual designing of the database.
2.Logical database modeling does not include indexes and constraints; the logical database model for an application can be used across various database software and implementations; whereas physical database modeling is software and hardware specific and has indexes and constraints.
3.Logical database modeling includes; ERD, business process diagrams, and user feedback documentation; whereas physical database modeling includes; server model diagram, database design documentation, and user feedback documentation.
Read more: Difference Between Logical and Physical Database Model | Difference Between | Logical vs Physical Database Model http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/software-technology/difference-between-logical-and-physical-database-model/#ixzz3AxPVhTlg
Conceptual Schema - covers entities and relationships. Should be created first. Contrary to some of the other answers; tables are not defined here. For example a 'many to many' table is not included in a conceptual data model but is defined as a 'many to many' relationship between entities.
Logical Schema - Covers tables, attributes, keys, mandatory role constraints, and referential integrity with no regards to the physical implementation. Things like indexes are not defined, attribute types should be kept logical, e.g. text instead of varchar2. Should be created based on the conceptual schema.
I need to produce both a logical model and a conceptual model. All the explanations here are really vague. The link posted above just shows the difference being that a conceptual model is a logical model without fields. Ok fine, I don't mention the name of the database. It appears to be totally redundant.
I really don't know what 'semantic' means. can someone explain what I would do differently using 'english' and possibly post a link to better examples than a picture that shows one picture that has fields and one that does not. The buzzwords are all well and good, but its so vague its not useful to practically implement.
do I do anything other than take my logical model (which is basically my physical model reversed engineered out of the DB, click a button in said tools and the images look a little different and then take off the data types).
From what i can practically see (and without buzzwords)
physical model: actually tables. The little pictures have data types in them and named pk/fk constraints
Logical Model: click the little button my tool (using Oracles SQL Developer Data Modeller, I dont have an erwin license and 2010 visio no longer reverse engineers out of the DB), and then the images on the screen change slightly. The data types are gone and the names of the constraints are gone, then the colors of the table representations changes to purple (so now I call them entities).
ok. so what would my Conceptual model look like other then: exact same thing as my logical model minus the fields. I would think there is more to it than this. Reciting that its a 'semantic' representation of data sounds real nice and fancy, but doesn't make sense to someone who has not made one of these before.
This is an old question and maybe this comes way too late, but I don't see one very important aspect necessary to answering the question.
That is, the TARGET audience for the data model. The Conceptual Data Model is the model generated from business analysis, from interviews with the BUSINESS about their data. It is not so much "high level" as it is the business's understanding of their data, business rules captured in the relationships between "candidate" entities. At this point, you are capturing the things of importance to the business (Employee, Customer, Contract, Account, etc.) and the relationships between them.
The final Conceptual Data Model may be somewhat abstract -- for instance, treating Individuals and Organizations entering into a contract as subtypes of a "Party", Contractors and Permanent Employees as subtypes of an Employee, even Employees and Customers subtypes of "Person" -- but it is a document that a data modeler develops from discussions with the business SMEs and presents to the business for validation.
The Logical Data Model is not just "more detail" -- where useful and important, a Conceptual Data Model may well have attributes included -- it is the ARCHITECTURE document, the model that is presented to the software analysts/engineers to explain and specify the data requirements. It will resolve many-to-many relationships to association tables and will define all attributes, with examples and constraints, so that code can be written against the architecture.
The Physical model is that Logical Model generated specifically for a particular environment, such as SQL Server or Teradata or Oracle or whatever. It will have keys, indexes, partitions, or whatever is needed to implement, based on sizing, access frequency, security constraints, etc.
So, if you are being asked to develop a Conceptual Data Model, you are being asked to design the solution (or part of it) from scratch, getting your information from the business. There's more to it, but I hope that answers the question.
First of all, a data model is an abstraction tool and a database model (or scheme/diagramm) is a modeling result.
Conceptual data model is DBMS-independent and covers functional/domain design area. The most known conceptual data model is "Entity-Relationship". Normally, you can reuse the conceptual scheme to produce different logical schemes not only relational.
Logical data model is intended to be implemented by some DBMS and corresponds mostly to the conceptual level of ANSI/SPARC architecture (proposed in 1975); this point gives some collisions of terminology. Zachman Framework tried to resolve this kind of collision ten years later introducing conceptual, logical and physical models.
There are many logical data models, and the most known is relational one.
So main differences of conceptual data model are the focusing on the domain and DBMS-independence whereas logical data model is the most abstract level of concrete DBMS you plan to use. Note that contemporary DBMS support several logical models at the same time.
You can also have a look to my book and to the article for more details.
Most answers here are strictly related to notations and syntax of the data models at different levels of abstraction. The key difference has not been mentioned by anyone. Conceptual models surface concepts. Concepts relate to other concepts in a different way that an Entity relates to another Entity at the Logical level of abstraction. Concepts are closer to Types. Usually at Conceptual level you display Types of things (this does not mean you must use the term "type" in your naming convention) and relationships between such types. Therefore, the existence of many-to-many relationships is not the rule but rather the consequence of the relationships between type-wise elements. In Logical Models Entities represent one instance of that thing in the real world. In Conceptual models it is not expected the description of an instance of an Entity and their relationships but rather the description of the "type" or "class" of that particular Entity.
Examples:
- Vehicles have Wheels and Wheels are used in Vehicles. At Conceptual level this is a many-to-many relationship
- A particular Vehicle (a car by instance), with one specific registration number have 5 wheels and each particular wheel, each one with a serial number is related to only that particular car. At Logical level this is a one-to-many relationship.
Conceptual covers "types/classes". Logical covers "instances".
I would add another comment about databases. I agree with one of the colleagues who commented above that Conceptual and Logical models have absolutely nothing about databases. Conceptual and Logical models describe the real world from a data perspective using notations such as ER or UML. Database vendors, smartly, designed their products to follow the same philosophy used to logically model the World and them created Relational Databases, making everyone's lifes easier. You can describe your organisation's data landscape at all the levels using Conceptual and Logical model and never use a relational database.
Well I guess this is my 2 cents...
logical data model
A logical data model describes the data in as much detail as possible, without regard to how they will be physical implemented in the database. Features of a logical data model include:
· Includes all entities and relationships among them.
· All attributes for each entity are specified.
· The primary key for each entity is specified.
· Foreign keys (keys identifying the relationship between different entities) are specified.
· Normalization occurs at this level.
conceptual data model
A conceptual data model identifies the highest-level relationships between the different entities. Features of conceptual data model include:
· Includes the important entities and the relationships among them.
· No attribute is specified.
· No primary key is specified.