Research Note - How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models

Underlying the design of any information system is an explicit or implicit conceptual model of the domain that the system supports. Because of the importance of such models, researchers and practitioners have long focused on how best to construct them. Past research on constructing conceptual models has generally focused on their semantics their meaning, to discover how to convey meaning more clearly and completely, or their pragmatics the importance of context in model creation and use, to discover how best to create or use a model in a given situation. We join these literatures by showing how semantics and pragmatics interact. Specifically, we carried out an experiment to examine how the importance of clear semantics in conceptual models---operationalized in terms of ontological clarity---varies depending on the pragmatics of readers' knowledge of the domain shown in the model. Our results show that the benefit of ontological clarity on understanding is concave downward follows an inverted-U as a function of readers' prior domain knowledge. The benefit is greatest when readers have moderate knowledge of the domain shown in the model. When readers have high or low domain knowledge, ontological clarity has no apparent benefit. Our study extends the theory of ontological clarity and emphasizes the need to construct conceptual models with readers' knowledge in mind.

[1]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Frank Parker Linguistics for non-linguists , 1986 .

[3]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Conceptual Modelling , 2012, NLDB.

[4]  John Benjafield,et al.  Cognition, 3rd ed. , 2007 .

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

[6]  Peter Fettke,et al.  How Conceptual Modeling Is Used , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Effects of Vocabulary Difficulty, Text Cohesion, and Schema Availability on Reading Comprehension. Technical Report No. 225. , 1981 .

[8]  Frederico T. Fonseca,et al.  The double role of ontologies in information science research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Expertise in Problem Solving. , 1981 .

[10]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Context, Attention and Depth of Processing During Interpretation , 2002 .

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

[12]  I Vessey,et al.  The effect of the application domain in IS problem solving: A theoretical analysis , 2007 .

[13]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[14]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  Does the use of computer-based BPC tools contribute to redesign effectiveness? Insights from a hermeneutic study , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

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

[16]  Kathryn Riley,et al.  Linguistics for Non-Linguists: A Primer with Exercises , 1999 .

[17]  Ron Weber,et al.  Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  J. Wiley Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Irit Hadar,et al.  Applying ontology-based rules to conceptual modeling: a reflection on modeling decision making , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[21]  J. Brooks Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[22]  Jeffrey Parsons An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representing Property Precedence on the Comprehension of Conceptual Schemas , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Organizational Memory , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[24]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[25]  Paul C. van Fenema,et al.  Cocreating Understanding and Value in Distributed Work: How Members of Onsite and Offshore Vendor Teams Give, Make, Demand, and Break Sense , 2008, MIS Q..

[26]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts , 2009 .

[27]  Louise McNally,et al.  Semantics and pragmatics. , 2013, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[28]  Dag I. K. Sjøberg,et al.  Evaluating the effect of a delegated versus centralized control style on the maintainability of object-oriented software , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[29]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Information Modeling Based on Semantic an Pragmatic Meaning , 2005 .

[30]  Geoffrey Leech,et al.  Language, meaning and context: pragmatics , 2002 .

[31]  R. Stamper Signs, Information, Norms and Systems , 1996 .

[32]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. , 1992 .

[33]  Mira Kajko-Mattsson,et al.  Classes of Distributed Agile Development Problems , 2010, 2010 Agile Conference.

[34]  Keng Siau,et al.  Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods – a review and comparative analysis , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[35]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Cognitive Fit in Requirements Modeling: A Study of Object and Process Methodologies , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  David Wastell,et al.  The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence , 1996 .

[37]  Keng Siau,et al.  Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[38]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Philosophical Foundations , 1995 .

[39]  Keng Siau,et al.  Advanced Topics In Database Research , 2005 .

[40]  Irit Hadar,et al.  The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study , 2012, Requirements Engineering.

[41]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? , 2011, MIS Q..

[42]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[43]  R. Mayer Models for Understanding , 1989 .

[44]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration , 2008, MIS Q..

[45]  Matthew Kramer,et al.  R 2 STATISTICS FOR MIXED MODELS , 2005 .

[46]  T. J. Teorey,et al.  A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model , 1986, CSUR.

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

[48]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information systems development and data modelling: conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1995 .

[49]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  The influence of domain knowledge on the functional capacity of working memory , 2009 .

[50]  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..

[51]  Helen Kelley,et al.  Research Commentary - Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects - A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[52]  Edward Yourdon,et al.  Modern structured analysis , 1989 .

[53]  R. Carston Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics , 2002 .

[54]  Peter J. Denning Great Principles of Computing , 2008, Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering.

[55]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[56]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Reversing the Reverse Cohesion Effect: Good Texts Can Be Better for Strategic, High-Knowledge Readers , 2007 .

[57]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[58]  Yair Wand,et al.  Guidelines for Designing Visual Ontologies to Support Knowledge Identification , 2011, MIS Q..

[59]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  A semiotics framework for information systems classification and development , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[60]  Linda Dawson,et al.  The use of object-oriented models in requirements engineering: a field study , 1999, ICIS.

[61]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[62]  Ron Weber,et al.  Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams , 1999, ICIS.

[63]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  The Hole in the Whole: A Response to Allen and March , 2012, MIS Q..

[64]  Frederico T. Fonseca,et al.  The double role of ontologies in information science research: Research Articles , 2007 .

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

[66]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[67]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

[69]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation , 2008 .

[70]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[71]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Requirements specification: learning object, process, and data methodologies , 1994, CACM.

[72]  Yair Wand,et al.  Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[73]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  How UML is used , 2006, CACM.

[74]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Designing Research for Application , 1981 .

[75]  J. Lyons Language, meaning, and context , 1981 .

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

[77]  L. Thompson,et al.  Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity , 2005 .

[78]  Peter Aiken,et al.  Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1997 .

[79]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  The Effects of State-Based and Event-Based Data Representation on User Performance in Query Formulation Tasks , 2006, MIS Q..

[80]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[81]  Yair Wand,et al.  Choosing classes in conceptual modeling , 1997, CACM.

[82]  William F. Brewer,et al.  The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction , 1993 .

[83]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  Database System Concepts , 1980 .