Initial Results from a Study on Personal Semantics of Conceptual Modeling Languages

In this paper we present the initial results from our longitudinal study into the personal semantics of common meta-concepts used in conceptual modeling. People have an implicit understanding of many of the meta-concepts used for modeling purposes, although these are rarely ever made explicit. We argue that a proper understanding of how modelers personally interpret the meta-concepts they use in nearly all of their (domain) models can aid in several things, e.g. explicating a modeler's (proto)typical concept usage, finding communities that share a conceptual understanding and matching individual modelers to each other. Our initial results include the analysis of data resulting from our study so far and a discussion what hypotheses they support.

[1]  Dirk van der Linden,et al.  Towards an Investigation of the Conceptual Landscape of Enterprise Architecture , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[2]  Ah Chung Tsoi,et al.  Advances in Web and Network Technologies, and Information Management, APWeb/WAIM 2007 International Workshops: DBMAN 2007, WebETrends 2007, PAIS 2007 and ASWAN 2007, Huang Shan, China, June 16-18, 2007, Proceedings , 2007, APWeb/WAIM Workshops.

[3]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Freezing language : conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations , 2003 .

[4]  Johanna Seibt,et al.  Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives , 2010 .

[5]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[6]  Francky Trichet,et al.  Ontology Personalization: An Approach Based on Conceptual Prototypicality , 2009, APWeb/WAIM Workshops.

[7]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Business Case Modelling for E-Services , 2005, Bled eConference.

[8]  Birgit Demuth,et al.  Electronic Communications of the EASST Volume 44 ( 2011 ) Proceedings of the Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling ( OCL 2011 ) UML is still inconsistent ! How to improve OCL Constraints in the UML 2 . 3 Superstructure , 2011 .

[9]  Michael Uschold.  Making the case for ontology , 2011, Appl. Ontology.

[10]  John F. Sowa,et al.  The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning , 2010 .

[11]  Carme Quer,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of i*-Based Agent-Oriented Modeling Languages , 2005, SEKE.

[12]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII , 2014, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[13]  Hans B. F. Mulder,et al.  Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology , 2009, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[14]  Marc M. Lankhorst,et al.  Enterprise architecture modelling--the issue of integration , 2004, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[15]  Selmin Nurcan,et al.  Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 12th International Conference, BPMDS 2011, and 16th International Conference, EMMSAD 2011, held at CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 20-21, 2011. Proceedings , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[16]  Mauricio Barcellos Almeida.  A proposal to evaluate ontology content , 2009, Appl. Ontology.

[17]  Tibert Verhagen,et al.  A framework for developing semantic differentials in IS research: Assessing the meaning of electronic marketplace quality (EMQ) , 2007 .

[18]  Akrivi Katifori,et al.  OntoPIM: how to rely on a personal ontology for Personal Information Management , 2005, Semantic Desktop Workshop.

[19]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .