Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 235–249 | Cite as

A UML and OWL description of Bunge’s upper-level ontology model

  • Joerg EvermannEmail author
Regular Paper

Abstract

A prominent high-level ontology is that proposed by Mario Bunge. While it has been extensively used for research in IS analysis and conceptual modelling, it has not been employed in the more formal settings of semantic web research. We claim that its specification in natural language is the key inhibitor to its wider use. Consequently, this paper offers a description of this ontology in open, standardized knowledge representation formats. The ontology is described both in UML and OWL in order to address needs of both semantic web and conceptual modelling communities.

Keywords

Natural Kind Description Logic Domain Ontology Object Management Group Ontological Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Guarino, N.(eds) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H., Wahlster, W. (eds.): Spinning the Semantic Web—Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim, H.: Predicting how ontologies for the semantic web will evolve. Commun. ACM 45, 48–54 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11, 93–155 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noy, N.F., Hafner, C.D.: The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. AI Mag. 18, 53–74 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith, B., Welty, C.: Ontology: Towards a new synthesis. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems, FOIS’01, October 17–19, Qgunquit, Maine (2001) iii–ixGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinto, H.S., Martins, J.P.: Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6, 441–464 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruninger, M., Lee, J.: Ontology applications and design. Commun. ACM 45, 39–41 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holsaple, C.W., Joshi, K.: A collaborative approach to ontology design. Commun. ACM 45, 42–47 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, M., Grüninger, M.: Ontologies for enterprise integration. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 82–89 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Ogunquit, Maine, pp. 2–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guha, R., Lenat, D.B.: Enabling agents to work together. Commmun. ACM 37, 127–142 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V., Pittman, K., Pratt, D., Shepherd, M.: CYC: toward programs with common sense. Commun. ACM 33, 30–49 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lenat, D.B.: CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun. ACM 38, 33–38 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language—W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref
  17. 17.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuiness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Semant. 1, 345–357 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \({\mathcal{SHIQ}}\) and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. J. Web Semant. 1, 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableau decision procedure for \({\mathcal{SHOIQ}}\). J. Autom. Reason. 39, 249–276 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bera, P., Wand, Y.: Analyzing OWL using a philosophy-based ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Torino (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bera, P., Krasnoperova, A., Wand, Y.: Improving real-world semantics in OWL. Working paper, The Sauder School of Business at UBC (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dussart, A., Aubert, B.A., Patry, M.: An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modeling formalisms. J. Database Manage. 15, 74–104 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 4–6, Tampa (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated process modelling: an ontological analysis. Inf. Syst. 25, 73–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Ontological analysis of integrated process models: testing hypotheses. Aust. J. Inf. Syst. 9, 30–38 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML. IEEE Trans. Data Knowl. Eng. 17, 713–725 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. In: Kunii, H., Jajodia, S., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Proceedings of ER, pp. 354–367 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: An ontological examination of object interaction in conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems WITS’01, New Orleans, December 15–16, pp. 91–96 (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Evermann, J.: The association construct in conceptual modelling - an analysis using the Bunge ontological model. In: Pastor, O., e Cunha, J.F.(eds) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2005, Porto, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 21–37 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Evaluating and improving OO modelling languages using the BWW-model. In: Proceedings of the Information Systems Foundation Workshop (1999). www.comp.mq.edu.au/isf99/Opdahl.htm
  33. 33.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B., Barbier, F.: An ontological evaluation of the OML metamodel. In: Falkenberg, E., Lyytinen, K.(eds) Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging, IFIP/Kluwer, Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. J. Syst. Softw. 57, 119–143 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Softw. Syst. Modeling 1, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg, E., Lingreen, P.(eds) Information System Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers BV (1989)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inf. Syst. 3(4), 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wand, Y., Storey, V.C., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 24, 494–528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER-2002), Tampere, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., van Sinderen, M.: A formal theory of conceptual modeling universals. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Philosophy and Informatics (WSPI), Cologne (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heller, B., Herre, H.: Ontological categories in GOL. Axiomathes 14, 57–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Herre, H., Heller, B., Burek, P., Hoehndorf, R., Loebe, F., Michalek, H.: General formal ontology (GFO): a foundational ontology integrating objects and processes. Part 1: Basic principles (version 1.0). Technical report, University of Leipzig, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med) (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guariono, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology library, WonderWeb deliverable D18. Technical report, University of Trento Laboratory for Applied Ontology (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Green, P.: Use of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in combination in upper CASE tools—an ontological evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’97), pp. 1–12. Barcelon (1997)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Applying ontologies to business and systems modelling techniques and perspectives: Lessons learned. J. Database Manage. 15, 105–117 (2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Herrera, S.I., Pallioto, D., Tkachuk, G., Luna, P.A.: Ontological modelling of information systems from Bunge’s contributions. In: Proceedings of the PHISE workshop, Porto, pp. 571–582 (2005)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A template for defining enterprise modelling constructs. J. Database Manage. 15, 39–73 (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a meta-model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 27, 75–91 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D., Wand, Y.: Modeling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Requir. Eng. 6, 663–679 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: Goal-driven analysis of process model validity. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, pp. 521–535 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Mario Bunge’s ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts. In: Weingartner, P., Dorn, G., (eds.) Studies on Mario Bunge’s Treatise. Rodopi, Atlanta (1990)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wand, Y., Wang, R.: Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Commun. ACM 39, 86–95 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wand, Y., Monarchi, D., Parsons, J., Woo, C.: Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development. Decision Support Syst. 15, 285–304 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers and Lybrand, Melbourne (1997)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Angeles, P.: Dictionary of Philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bunge, M.A.: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Volume 3 of Treatise On Basic Philosophy. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bunge, M.A.: Ontology II: A World of Systems. Volume 4 of Treatise On Basic Philosophy. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 384–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cockcroft, S., Rowles, S.: Ontological evaluation of health models: Some early findings. In: Proceedings of the 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10–13 July, Adelaide, pp. 611–625. (2003)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts. Requir. Eng. 10(2), 146–160 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontological modelling rules for UML: an empirical assessment. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 46 (2006)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gemino, A.: Empirical Comparisons of Systems Analysis Modeling Techniques. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modelling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 301–326 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weber, R., Zhang, Y.: An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inf. Syst. J. 6, 147–170 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Milton, S., Rosemann, M.: Using meta models for the comparison of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the EMMSAD Workshop, Velden (2003)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology (1997). http://www.aiai.ed.uk/project/pub/documents/1998/98-ker-ent-ontology.ps.
  67. 67.
    Gomez-Perez, A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Corcho, O. (eds.): Ontological Engineering. Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.): Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Toronto (2002)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: Using a semiotic framework for a comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies. IDEA Group Publishing (2004)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the EMMSAD Workshop, Luxembourg, pp. 521–532 (2006)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Object Management Group: Ontology Definition Meta-Model. Final adopted specification, Document ptc/06-10-11 (2006)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Guarino, N., van Sinderen, M.: An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advances in Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Latvia. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Heller, B., Herre, H.: Formal ontology and principles of GOL. Technical report, University of Leipzig, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med) (2003)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Duric, D.: MDA-based ontology infrastructure. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. syst. 1, 91–116 (2004)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168, 70–118 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: UML as an ontology modelling language. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 46–53. (1999)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gadamer, H.G.: Philosophical Hermeneutics. University of California Press, California (1976)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ricoeur, P.: Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Texas Christian University Press, Fort Worth (1976)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Boland, R.: Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research in information systems. In: Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G., Wood-Harper, T.(eds) Research Methods in Information Systems., Elsevier, Amsterdam (1985)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chalmers, M.: Hermeneutics, information, and representation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 13, 210–220 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Myers, M.: Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 5, 51–70 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Prasad, A.: The contest over meaning: hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organ. Res. Methods 5, 12–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. (2005) Document formal/05-07-04Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Barbier, F.: Black and white diamonds. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on the Unified Modelling Language UML 99, pp. 550–565 (1999)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Flynn, D., Knight, D., Laender, A.: Multiple relationships: An analysis of their semantics and their modelling. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olive, A.(eds) Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views. IFIP/Chapman and Hall, London (1995)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Jones, T.H., Song, I.Y.: Binary equivalents of ternary relationships in entity-relationship modeling: a logical decomposition approach. J. Database Manage. 11, 12–19 (2000)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Genova, G., Llorens, J., Martinez, P.: The meaning of multiplicity of n-ary associations in UML. Softw. Syst. Model. 1, 86–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Demuth, B.: The Dresden OCL toolkit and its role in information systems development. In: 13th International Conference on Information Systems Development: Methods and Tools, Theory and Practice Conference, Advances in Theory, Practice, and Education (ISD’94). Vilnius, Lithuania (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations