Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambler, S. (2005). Elements of UML 2.0 style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, D. J., & Hardgrave, B. C. (2007). Understanding mindshift learning: The transition to object-oriented development. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 453–474.
Batini, C., Ceri, S., & Navathe, S. B. (1991). Conceptual database design: An entity-relationship approach. Redwood City: Benjamin/Cummings.
Bolloju, N., & Leung, F. (2006). Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 108–112.
Borgida, A., Greenspan, S., & Mylopoulos, J. (1985). Knowledge representation as the basis for requirements specifications. IEEE Computer, 15(4), 82–90.
Bunge, M. A. (1977). Ontology I: The furniture of the world (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chen, P. P. (1976). The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9–36.
Conradi, R., Mohagheghi, P., Arif, T., Hedge, L. C., Bundle, G. A., & Pedersen, A. (2003). Object-oriented reading techniques for inspection of UML models—an industrial experiment. Paper presented at the European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP’03), Darmstadt, Germany.
Deng, M., Stirewalt, R. E. K., & Cheng, B. H. C. (2005). Retrieval by construction: A traceability technique to support verification and validation of UML formalizations. International Journal of Software Engineering, 15(5), 837–872.
Evermann, J. (2005). Towards a cognitive foundation for knowledge representation. Information Systems Journal, 15, 147–178.
Evermann, J., & Wand, Y. (2006). Ontological modeling rules for UML: An empirical assessment. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47, 14–29.
Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2003). Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 79–84.
Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2005). Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 301–326.
Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., & Sheth, A. (1995). An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3, 119–153.
Gerard, G. J. (2005). The REA pattern, knowledge structures, and conceptual modeling performance. Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 57–77.
Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified software development process. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., & Park, S.-J. (2006). Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and is domain knowledge. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 81–99.
Kiewkanya, M., & Muenchaisri, P. (2005). Measuring maintainability in early phase using aesthetic metrics. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on software engineering, parallel and distributed systems (SEPADS 2005), Salzburg, Austria.
Kong, J., Zhang, K., Dong, J., & Xu, D. (2009). Specifying behavioral semantics of UML diagrams through graph transformations. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(2), 292–306.
Krogstie, J. (2003). Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In L. Favre (Ed.), UML and the unified process. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., & Jørgensen, H. (2006). Process models representing knowledge for action: A revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 91–102.
Krogstie, J., & Sølvberg, A. (2003). Information systems engineering: Conceptual modeling in a quality perspective. Trondheim, Norway: Kompendiumforlaget.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lange, C. F. J., Chaudron, M. R. V., & Muskens, J. (2006). UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software, 23(2), 40–46.
Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Sølvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2), 42–49.
Lung, C. H., & Urban, J. E. (1995). An approach to the classification of domain models in support of analogical reuse. Paper presented at the SIGSOFT symposium on software reusability, Seattle.
Maiden, N. A. M., & Sutcliffe, A. G. (1992). Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy. Communications of the ACM, 35(55–64).
Moody, D., & Shanks, G. (2003). Improving the quality of data models: Empirical validation of a quality management framework. Information Systems, 28, 619–650.
Moody, D., Shanks, G. G., & Darke, P. (1998). Improving the quality of entity relationship models—experience in research and practice. Paper presented at the 17th international conference on conceptual modeling, Singapore.
Moody, D., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., & Sølvberg, A. (2003). Evaluating the quality of information models: Empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, OR.
Nelson, H. J., Monarchi, D. E., & Nelson, K. M. (2001). Ensuring the “goodness” of a conceptual representation. Paper presented at the European Conference on Software Measurement and Control (FESMA-DASMA), Heidelberg, Germany.
OMG. (2007a). OMG unified modeling language (OMG UML) infrastructure V2.1.2. Object Management Group.
OMG. (2007b). OMG unified modeling language (OMG UML) superstructure V2.1.2. Object Management Group.
Poels, G. (2009). Understanding business domain models: The effect of reorganizing resource-event-agent conceptual modeling structures. Unpublished FEB Working Paper. Ghent University.
Poels, G., Maes, A., Gailly, F., & Paemeleire, R. (2007). The pragmatic quality of resources-events-agents diagrams: an experimental evaluation. Information Systems Journal. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00253.x.
Purchase, H., Allder, J., & Carrington, D. (2002). Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 6(3), 255–279.
Recker, J., Rosemann, M., & Krogstie, J. (2007). Ontology- versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: A comparison. Communications of the AIS, 20, 774–799.
Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Shaft, T. M., & Vessey, I. (1995). The relevance of application domain knowledge - the case of computer-program comprehension. Information Systems Research, 6(3), 286–299.
Snoeck, M., & Poels, G. (2000). Improving the reuse possibilities of the behavioral aspects of object-oriented domain models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 1920, 423–439.
St. Amant, R., McBride, S., & Ritter, F. (2006). AI support for building cognitive models. Paper presented at the twenty first national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-06), Menlo Park, CA.
Stamper, R. (1992). Signs, organisations, norms and information systems. Paper presented at the 3rd Australian conference on information systems, Wollongong.
Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations—a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behavior & Information Technology, 19(1), 15–27.
Unkelkar, B. (2005). Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0 models. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
van Amstel, M. F., Lange, C. F. J., & Chaudron, M. R. V. (2007). Four automated approaches to analyze the quality of UML sequence diagrams. Paper presented at the 1st IEEE international workshop quality-oriented reuse of software (QUORS’07), Beijing.
Wagelaar, D., & Van Der Straeten, R. (2007). Platform ontology for the model driven architecture. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 362–373.
Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R. (1999). An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4), 494–528.
Wand, Y., & Wang, R. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86–95.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1988). An ontological analysis of some fundamental information system concepts. Paper presented at the international conference on information systems (ICIS), Minneapolis, MN.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1990a). An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 1282–1292.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1990b). Towards a theory of the deep structure of information systems. Paper presented at the international conference on information systems, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 217–237.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information-systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203–223.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363–376.
Acknowledgments
This research has been funded by the following projects: MEDUSAS (CDTI-MICINN and FEDER IDI-20090557), ORIGIN (CDTI-MICINN and FEDER IDI-2010043(1-5)), PEGASO/MAGO (MICINN and FEDER, TIN2009-13718-C02-01), EECCOO (MICINN TRA2009_0074) and MECCA (JCMM PII2I09-0075-8394).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M. et al. A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Qual J 20, 201–228 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9