A conceptual modeling quality framework

The goal of any modeling activity is a complete and accurate understanding of the real-world domain, within the bounds of the problem at hand and keeping in mind the goals of the stakeholders involved. High-quality representations are critical to that understanding. This paper proposes a comprehensive Conceptual Modeling Quality Framework, bringing together two well-known quality frameworks: the framework of Lindland, Sindre, and Sølvberg (LSS) and that of Wand and Weber based on Bunge’s ontology (BWW). This framework builds upon the strengths of the LSS and BWW frameworks, bringing together and organizing the various quality cornerstones and then defining the many quality dimensions that connect one to another. It presents a unified view of conceptual modeling quality that can benefit both researchers and practitioners.

[1]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the deep structure of information systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Dianxiang Xu,et al.  Specifying behavioral semantics of UML diagrams through graph transformations , 2009, J. Syst. Softw..

[3]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[4]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontological Modeling Rules for UML: An Empirical Assessment , 2006, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

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

[6]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models - Experience in Research and Practice , 1998, ER.

[7]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  In practice: UML software architecture and design description , 2006, IEEE Software.

[8]  John Krogstie,et al.  Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework , 2003 .

[9]  Richard Y. Wang,et al.  Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations , 1996, CACM.

[10]  R. K. Stamper.  Signs, Organisations, Norms and Information Systems , 1992 .

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

[12]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  A Comparative Study of Robot Languages , 1982, Computer.

[13]  Jan Recker,et al.  Ontology- Versus Pattern-Based Evaluation of Process Modeling Languages: A Comparison , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Gregory J. Gerard,et al.  The REA Pattern, Knowledge Structures, and Conceptual Modeling Performance , 2005, J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[16]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework , 2003, 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[17]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[18]  Betty H. C. Cheng,et al.  Retrieval by Construction: a Traceability Technique to Support Verification and Validation of Uml Formalizations , 2005, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[19]  M ShaftTeresa,et al.  The relevance of application domain knowledge , 1998 .

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

[21]  Shamkant B. Navathe,et al.  Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach , 1991 .

[22]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Analysis of some Fundamental Information Systems Concepts , 1988, ICIS.

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

[24]  Reidar Conradi,et al.  Object-Oriented Reading Techniques for Inspection of UML Models - An Industrial Experiment , 2003, ECOOP.

[25]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure , 1995, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[26]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework , 2003, Inf. Syst..

[27]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning , 2003, CACM.

[28]  Ron Weber,et al.  Toward a Theory of the Deep Structure of Information Systems , 1990, ICIS.

[29]  Pornsiri Muenchaisri,et al.  Measuring maintainability in early phase using aesthetic metrics , 2005, ICSE 2005.

[30]  R. H.,et al.  The Principles of Mathematics , 1903, Nature.

[31]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Graph Layout Aesthetics in UML Diagrams: User Preferences , 2002, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[32]  Kecheng Liu,et al.  Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations - a semiotic approach to information systems design , 2000, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[33]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[34]  Narasimha Bolloju,et al.  Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML , 2006, CACM.

[35]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Knowledge Representation as the Basis for Requirements Specifications , 1985, Computer.

[36]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Towards a cognitive foundation for knowledge representation , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[37]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  Four Automated Approaches to Analyze the Quality of UML Sequence Diagrams , 2007, 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2007).

[38]  Bhuvan Unhelkar.  Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models , 2005 .

[39]  Jim Arlow,et al.  UML and the unified process , 2001 .

[40]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy , 1992, CACM.

[41]  Geert Poels,et al.  Understanding Business Domain Models: The Effect of Recognizing Resource-Event-Agent Conceptual Modeling Structures , 2011, J. Database Manag..

[42]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[43]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Software Development Process , 1999 .

[44]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  AI Support for Building Cognitive Models , 2006, AAAI.

[45]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The Elements of UML(TM) 2.0 Style , 2005 .

[46]  Deborah J. Armstrong,et al.  Understanding Mindshift Learning: The Transition to Object-Oriented Development , 2007, MIS Q..

[47]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[48]  Chung-Horng Lung,et al.  An approach to the classification of domain models in support of analogical reuse , 1995, SSR '95.

[49]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

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

[51]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Research Report - The Relevance of Application Domain Knowledge: The Case of Computer Program Comprehension , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[52]  Geert Poels,et al.  The pragmatic quality of Resources‐ Events‐Agents diagrams: an experimental evaluation , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[53]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The Elements of UML™ 2.0 Style: The Elements of UML™ 2.0 Style , 2005 .

[54]  John Krogstie,et al.  Information Systems Engineering: Conceptual Modeling in a quality perspective , 2003 .

[55]  Geert Poels,et al.  Improving the Reuse Possibilities of the Behavioral Aspects of Object-Oriented Domain Models , 2000, ER.

[56]  Laurian M. Chirica,et al.  The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, SIGF.