Formalizing Linguistic Conventions for Conceptual Models

A precondition for the appropriate analysis of conceptual models is not only their syntactic correctness but also their semantic comparability. Assuring comparability is challenging especially when models are developed by different persons. Empirical studies show that such models can vary heavily, especially in model element naming, even if they express the same issue. In contrast to most ontology-driven approaches proposing the resolution of these differences ex-post, we introduce an approach that avoids naming differences in conceptual models already during modeling. Therefore we formalize naming conventions combining domain thesauri and phrase structures based on a lin-guistic grammar. This allows for guiding modelers automatically during the modeling process using standardized labels for model elements. Our approach is generic, making it applicable for any modeling language.

[1]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[2]  Peter Höfferer,et al.  Achieving Business Process Model Interoperability Using Metamodels and Ontologies , 2007, ECIS.

[3]  Geoffrey Sampson,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics , 2003, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

[4]  Wenfei Fan,et al.  Keys with Upward Wildcards for XML , 2001, DEXA.

[5]  Andreas Oberweis,et al.  How to detect semantic business process model variants? , 2007, SAC '07.

[6]  Floor de Jong.  Complexity management in BiZZdesigner - an evaluation of a business process modelling tool , 2007 .

[7]  Peter McBrien,et al.  A General Approach to the Generation of Conceptual Model Transformations , 2005, CAiSE.

[8]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Komplexitätsmanagement in Prozeßmodellen , 1996 .

[9]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Formal Ontology and Information Systems , 1998 .

[10]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[11]  Ken Barker,et al.  Integrating relational database schemas using a standardized dictionary , 2001, SAC.

[12]  Stephen A. White,et al.  BPMN modeling and reference guide : understanding and using BPMN : develop rigorous yet understandable graphical representations of business processes , 2008 .

[13]  Mehrdad Sabetzadeh,et al.  A Relationship-Driven Framework for Model Merging , 2007, International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE'07: ICSE Workshop 2007).

[14]  Luigi Pontieri,et al.  An Ontology-Driven Process Modeling Framework , 2004, DEXA.

[15]  Ashutosh Tiwari,et al.  Business Process Analysis and Optimization: Beyond Reengineering , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[16]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[17]  Michael Rosemann.  Preparation of Process Modeling , 2003 .

[18]  Andreas Oberweis,et al.  Ontology Based Business Process Description , 2005, EMOI-INTEROP.

[19]  Irit Hadar,et al.  Variations in Conceptual Modeling: Classification and Ontological Analysis , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  ARIS - Business Process Modeling , 1998 .

[21]  Helmut Schmidt,et al.  Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees , 1994 .

[22]  Ruslan Mitkov,et al.  The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics , 2003 .

[23]  Ingo Weber,et al.  User-Friendly Semantic Annotation in Business Process Modeling , 2007, WISE Workshops.

[24]  Keith Phalp,et al.  Quantitative analysis of static models of processes , 2000, J. Syst. Softw..

[25]  Michael Schrefl,et al.  Knowledge Acquisition from EPC Models for Extraction of Process Patterns in Engineering Domains , 2008, Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[26]  Marc Ehrig,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Semantic Business Process Models , 2007, APCCM.

[27]  Hemant K. Bhargava,et al.  Unique Names Violations, a Problem for Model Integration or You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto , 1991, INFORMS J. Comput..

[28]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity Relationship Model , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.