Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 205–231 | Cite as

Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling

  • Victorio A. Carvalho
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
Theme Section Paper

Abstract

Multi-level conceptual modeling addresses the representation of subject domains dealing explicitly with multiple classification levels. Despite the recent advances in multi-level modeling techniques, we believe that the literature in multi-level conceptual modeling would benefit from a theory that: (1) formally characterizes the nature of classification levels and (2) precisely defines the structural relations that may occur between elements of different classification levels. This work aims to fill this gap by proposing an axiomatic theory that can be considered a reference top-level ontology for types in multi-level conceptual modeling. The theory provides the modeler with basic concepts and patterns to articulate domains that require multiple levels of classification as well as to inform the development of well-founded languages for multi-level conceptual modeling. The whole theory is founded on a basic instantiation relation and characterizes the concepts of individuals and types, with types organized in levels related by instantiation. Further, it includes intra-level structural relations that are used to define expressive multi-level models and cross-level relations that allow us to account for and incorporate the different notions of power type in the literature.

Keywords

Multi-level modeling Conceptual modeling Power types Clabjects Ontology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is partly funded by the Brazilian Research Funding Agencies CAPES, CNPq (Grant Numbers 311313/2014-0, 485368/2013-7, 461777/2014-2) and FAPES (Grant Number 69382549).

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R.: Melanie: multi-level modeling and ontology engineering environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Master Class on Model-Driven Engineering Modeling Wizards—MW’12. New York, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Meta-level independent modeling. In: International Workshop “Model Engineering” (in Conjunction with ECOOP’2000), Cannes, France (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Processes and products in a multi-level metamodeling architecture. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 11(6), 761–784 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(3), 345–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel modeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, pp. 19–33. Toronto, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkinson, C.: Metamodelling for distributed object environments. In: First International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC’97). Brisbane, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bealer, G.: Quality and Concept. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardelli, L.: Structural subtyping and the notion of power type. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium of Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 70–79 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A.: A semantic foundation for organizational structures: a multi-level approach. In: Proceedings of the Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Using reference domain ontologies to define the real-world semantics of domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings 26th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2014), pp. 488–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Fonseca, C.M., Guizzardi G.: Extending the foundations of ontology-based conceptual modeling with a multi-level theory. In: 35th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2015), pp. 119–133 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coquand, T.: Type theory. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/type-theory/ (2014)
  15. 15.
    Ereshefsky, M.: Species. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/species/ (2010)
  16. 16.
    Eriksson, O., Henderson-Sellers, B., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ontological and linguistic metamodeling revisited: a language use approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(12), 2099–2124 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun. ACM 45(2), 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guarino, N.: The ontological level. In: Casati, R., Smith, B., White, G. (eds.) Philosophy and the Cognitive Science, pp. 443–456. Holder-Pivhler-Tempsky, Vienna (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: “We need to discuss the relationship”: revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Proceedings of the 27th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2015), pp. 488–502 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. University of Twente, Enschede (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guizzardi, G. et al.: Towards an ontological analysis of powertypes. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Ontologies for Artificial Intelligence (FOFAI 2015), 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: On the Mathematics of Modeling, Metamodelling, Ontologies and Modelling Languages. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kennel, B.: A Unified Framework for Multi-level Modeling. University of Mannheim, Mannheim (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kühne, T.: Contrasting classification with generalisation. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Wellington, New Zealand (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lara, J. de, Guerra, E.: Deep meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In: Proceedings of the 48th International Conference, TOOLS 2010. Málaga, Spain (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lara, J. de, Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J. S.: When and how to use multilevel modelling. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24(2), 1–46, 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lara, J. et al.: Extending deep meta-modelling for practical model-driven engineering. Comput. J. 57(1):36–58 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jarke, M., Gallersdörfer, R., Jeusfeld, M.A., Staudt, M.: ConceptBase—a deductive object base for meta data management. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 167–192 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayr, E.: The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montague, R.: Formal philosophy: selected papers of Richard Montague. In: Thomasson, R. (eds.) Paperback, p.370. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, Databases and CASE, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M.: Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8(4), 325–362 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nardi, J.C., Falbo, R., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Ferreira Pires, L., van Sinderen, M., Guarino, N.: Towards a commitment-based reference ontology for services. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2013), pp. 175–184. IEEE Computer Society Press (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Wellington, New Zealand (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neumayr, B., Jeusfeld, M. A., Schrefl, M., Schütz, C.: Dual deep instantiation and It ConceptBase implementation. In: Proceedings 26th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2014), pp. 503–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M., Thalhiem, B.: Modeling techniques formulti-level abstraction. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) LNCS, vol. 6520, pp 68–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Odell, J.: Power types. J. Object Oriented Program. 7(2), 8–12 (1994)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    OMG : UML Superstructure Specification—Version 2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification—Version 2.4.1 (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pereira, D., Almeida, J.P.A.: Representing organizational structures in an enterprise architecture language. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry (FOMI 2014), Rio de Janeiro (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pirotte, A., Zimanyi, E., Massart, D., Yakusheva, T.: Materialization: a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern. In: Bocca, J., Jarke, M., Zaniolo, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large DataBases (VLDB’94), pp. 630–641 (1994)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Q. 35(1), 1–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rossini, A., et al.: A formalisation of deep metamodelling. Form. Asp. Comput. 26(6), 1115–1152 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Swoyer, C., Orilia, F.: Properties. In: Zalta, E.N. (eds.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/properties/ (2014)
  49. 49.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language—Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (Second Edition). https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211 (2012)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victorio A. Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Research Group (NEMO)Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES)VitóriaBrazil
  2. 2.Research Group in Applied Informatics, Informatics DepartmentFederal Institute of Espírito Santo (IFES)ColatinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations