Variations in Conceptual Modeling: Classification and Ontological Analysis

Conceptual models are aimed at providing formal representations of a domain. They are mainly used for the purpose of understanding and communicating about requirements for information systems. Conceptual modeling has acquired a large body of research dealing with the semantics of modeling constructs, with the goal to make models better vehicles for understanding and communication. However, it is commonly known that different people construct different models of a given domain although all may be similarly adequate. The premise of this paper is that variations in models reflect vagueness in the criteria for deciding how to map reality into modeling constructs. Exploring model variations as such can contribute to research that deals with the semantics of modeling constructs. This paper reports an exploratory study in which empirically obtained model variations were qualitatively analyzed and classified into variation types. In light of the identified variation types, we analyzed two ontology-based modeling frameworks in order to evaluate their potential contribution to a reduction in variations. Our analysis suggests that such frameworks may contribute to more conclusive modeling decision making, thus reducing variations. However, since there is no complete consistency between the two frameworks, in order to reduce variations, a single framework should be systematically applied.

[1]  E. Tansley,et al.  Using ontology to validate conceptual models , 2003, CACM.

[2]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[3]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  The Association Construct in Conceptual Modelling - An Analysis Using the Bunge Ontological Model , 2005, CAiSE.

[4]  Ron Weber,et al.  Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Monique Snoeck,et al.  Core modelling concepts in object-oriented conceptual modelling , 2001, Proceedings Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. TOOLS 38.

[6]  Ron Weber,et al.  Evaluating Conceptual Modelling Practices: Composites, Things, Properties , 2005 .

[7]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  The Whole-Part Relationship in the Unified Modeling Language: A New Approach , 2001, Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues.

[8]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Property Precedence in Conceptual Modelling , 2004, APCCM.

[9]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Comparing data modeling formalisms , 1995, CACM.

[10]  Jörg Evermann Thinking Ontologically: Conceptual vs. Design Models in UML , 2005 .

[11]  Dov Dori,et al.  The Model Multiplicity Problem: Experimenting with Real-Time Specification Methods , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[12]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Definition and Evolution of Information Systems Development Methodologies and Data Modeling , 1995 .

[13]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling , 2002, ER.

[14]  R. Bogdan Qualitative research for education , 1981 .

[15]  R. Bogdan Qualitative research for education : an introduction to theory and methods / by Robert C. Bogdan and Sari Knopp Biklen , 1997 .

[16]  M. Bunge Treatise on basic philosophy , 1974 .

[17]  Luigi Palopoli,et al.  Uniform Techniques for Deriving Similarities of Objects and Subschemes in Heterogeneous Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[18]  Silvana Castano,et al.  Conceptual schema analysis: techniques and applications , 1998, TODS.

[19]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[20]  Monique Snoeck,et al.  Core modelling concepts in object-oriented conceptual modelling , 2001, Proceedings Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. TOOLS 38.

[21]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  FOOM: Functional and Object-Oriented Analysis and Design of Information Systems: An Integrated Methodology , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[22]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  An Information Model Based on Classification Theory , 1996 .

[23]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Comparing relationships in conceptual modeling: mapping to semantic classifications , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[24]  Reinhard Schütte,et al.  The Guidelines of Modeling - An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models , 1998, ER.

[25]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling , 1999, TODS.

[26]  Barry Smith,et al.  GOL: toward an axiomatized upper-level ontology , 2001, FOIS.

[27]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[28]  CastanoS.,et al.  Conceptual schema analysis , 1998 .

[29]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Understanding semantic relationships , 1993, The VLDB Journal.

[30]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The role of prior experience and task characteristics in object-oriented modeling: an empirical study , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Pnina Soffer,et al.  Structural Equivalence in Model-Based Reuse : Overcoming Differences in Abstraction Level , 2003 .

[32]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[33]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Human Factors Research on Data Modeling: A Review of Prior Research, An Extended Framework and Future Research Directions , 2002, J. Database Manag..

[34]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological analysis of whole-part relationships in OO-models , 2001, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[35]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using objects for systems analysis , 1997, CACM.

[36]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[37]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Formalization of the Whole-Part Relationship in the Unified Modeling Language , 2003, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[38]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[39]  Geert Poels,et al.  Faculteit Economie En Bedrijfskunde Hoveniersberg 24 B-9000 Gent Object Class or Association Class? Testing the User Effect on Cardinality Interpretation , 2022 .

[40]  D. Caulley Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods , 2007 .

[41]  K. Wells,et al.  Interviewing in Qualitative Research , 2018 .

[42]  Dov Dori,et al.  Object-process methodology - a holistic systems paradigm , 2013 .

[43]  Pnina Soffer Reusability of Conceptual Models: The Problem of Model Variations , 2003 .

[44]  Pnina Soffer Refinement Equivalence in Model-Based Reuse: Overcoming Differences in Abstraction Level , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[45]  Ron Weber,et al.  Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[46]  Peter Meso,et al.  How Good Are These UML Diagrams? An Empirical Test of the Wand and Weber Good Decomposition Model , 2002, ICIS.

[47]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[48]  Heinz Klein,et al.  Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Preface , 1995 .

[49]  Boris Wyssusek,et al.  Ontological Foundations of Information Systems Analysis and Design: Extending the Scope of the Discussion , 2005 .

[50]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  Towards Ontological Foundations for UML Conceptual Models , 2002, OTM.

[51]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs , 2001, ER.

[52]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory methodology: An overview. , 1994 .

[53]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[54]  R. Bogdan,et al.  Qualitative Research in Education. An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Third Edition. , 1998 .

[55]  A. Strauss Basics Of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[56]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  A framework for studying human error behavior in conceptual database modeling , 1993, Inf. Manag..

[57]  Richard R. Weber Ontological Foundations of Information Systems: Coopers and Lybrand , 1997 .

[58]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  An Ontologically Well-Founded Profile for UML Conceptual Models , 2004, CAiSE.

[59]  Pamela Jordan Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[60]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[61]  M. Bassey Case study research in educational settings , 1999 .