Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 235–250 | Cite as

Recommendation-Based Conceptual Modeling and Ontology Evolution Framework (CMOE+)

  • Frederik Gailly
  • Nadejda Alkhaldi
  • Sven Casteleyn
  • Wouter Verbeke
Research Paper


Within an enterprise, various stakeholders create different conceptual models, such as process, data, and requirements models. These models are fundamentally based on similar underlying enterprise (domain) concepts, but they differ in focus, use different modeling languages, take different viewpoints, utilize different terminology, and are used to develop different enterprise artifacts; as such, they typically lack consistency and interoperability. This issue can be solved by enterprise-specific ontologies, which serve as a reference during the conceptual model creation. Using such a shared semantic repository makes conceptual models interoperable and facilitates model integration. The challenge to accomplish this is twofold: on the one hand, an up-to-date enterprise-specific ontology needs to be created and maintained, and on the other hand, different modelers also need to be supported in their use of the enterprise-specific ontology. The authors propose to tackle these challenges by means of a recommendation-based conceptual modeling and an ontology evolution framework, and we focus in particular on ontology-based modeling support. To this end, the authors present a framework for Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) as a conceptual modeling language, and focus on how modelers can be assisted during the modeling process and how this impacts the semantic quality of the resulting models. Subsequently, a first, large-scale explorative experiment is presented involving 140 business students to evaluate the BPMN instantiation of our framework. The experiments show promising results with regard to incurred overheads, intention of use and model interoperability.


Conceptual modeling Enterprise ontology BPMN Ontology-driven modeling UFO 



The ontology-driven conceptual modeling research under the supervision of Frederik Gailly is funded by the National Bank of Belgium. Since November 2015, Sven Casteleyn is funded by the Ramón y Cajal Programme of the Spanish Government, Grant Number RYC-2014-16606.

Supplementary material

12599_2017_488_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1096 kb)
12599_2017_488_MOESM2_ESM.png (21 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PNG 21 kb)
12599_2017_488_MOESM3_ESM.png (636 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PNG 635 kb)
12599_2017_488_MOESM4_ESM.png (57 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PNG 57 kb)


  1. Abramowicz W, Filipowska A, Kaczmarek M, Kaczmarek T (2007) Semantically enhanced business process modelling notation. CEUR Workshop Proc 251:88–91Google Scholar
  2. Almeida JP, Guizzardi G (2013) An ontological analysis of the notion of community in the RM-ODP enterprise language. Comput Stand Interfaces 35:257–268. doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2012.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker J, Breuker D, Pfeiffer D, Räckers M (2009a) Constructing comparable business process models with domain specific languages—an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of 17th European conference on information system, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  4. Becker J, Delfmann P, Herwig S, Lis L, Stein A (2009b) Towards increased comparability of conceptual models-enforcing naming conventions through domain thesauri and linguistic grammars. In: ECIS 2009 proceedings, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  5. Becker J, Pfeiffer D, Falk T, Räckers M (2010) Semantic business process management. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1: Introduction, methods, and information systems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 187–211Google Scholar
  6. Blomqvist E (2005) Fully automatic construction of enterprise ontologies using design patterns: initial method and first experiences. LNCS 3761:1314–1329Google Scholar
  7. Born M, Dörr F, Weber I (2007) User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. Web Inf Syst Eng 2007 Work. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 260–271Google Scholar
  8. Cabral L, Norton B, Domingue J (2009) The business process modelling ontology. In: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on semantic business process management. ACM, NY, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  9. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delfmann P, Herwig S, Lis L (2009) Unified enterprise knowledge representation with conceptual models-capturing corporate language in naming conventions. In: ICIS 2009 proceedings, 45.
  11. Di Francescomarino C, Tonella P (2009) Supporting ontology-based semantic annotation of business processes with automated suggestions. In: Halpin T, Krogstie J, Nurcan S, Proper E, Schmidt R, Soffer P, Ukor R (eds) LNBIP. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 211–223Google Scholar
  12. Di Francescomarino C, Ghidini C, Rospocher M, Serafini L, Tonella P (2011) A framework for the collaborative specification of semantically annotated business processes. J Softw Maint Evol Res Pract 23:261–295. doi: 10.1002/smr CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evermann J, Wand Y (2005) Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fill H-G (2011a) Using semantically annotated models for supporting business process benchmarking. In: Grabis J, Kirikova M (eds) Perspectives in business informatics research. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fill H-G (2011b) On the conceptualization of a modeling language for semantic model annotations. In: Salinesi C, Pastor O (eds) Advances in information system and engineering work. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fill H-G (2012) An approach for analyzing the effects of risks on business processes using semantic annotations. In: ECIS 2012 proceedings, 111.
  17. Gailly F (2016) Recommendation-based conceptual modeling and ontology evolution (CMOEplus) java tool. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.167132
  18. Geerts GL, McCarthy WE (1999) An accounting object infrastructure for knowledge based enterprise models. IEEE Intell Syst Their Appl 14:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glimm B, Horrocks I, Motik B, Stoilos G, Wang Z (2014) HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner. J Autom Reason 53:245–269. doi: 10.1007/s10817-014-9305-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grau BC, Horrocks I, Motik B, Parsia B, Patel-Schneider P, Sattler U (2008) OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Web Semant 6:309–322. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37:337-A6Google Scholar
  22. Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. Int Conf Form Ontol Inf Syst. IOS, Trento, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  23. Guarino N, Welty C (2002) Evaluating ontological decisions with ontoclean. Commun ACM 45:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guizzardi G (2013) Ontology-based evaluation and design of visual conceptual modeling languages. Domain Eng Prod Lines Lang Concept Model. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36654-3 Google Scholar
  25. Guizzardi G, Wagner G (2011) Can BPMN be used for making simulation models? In: Barjis J, Eldabi T, Gupta A (eds) Enterprise and organizational modeling and simulation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guizzardi G, Wagner G, Almeida JPA, Guizzardi RSS (2015) Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: the unified foundational ontology (UFO) story. Appl Ontol 10:259–271. doi: 10.3233/AO-150157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hahn A (2005) Integration verteilter Produktmodelle durch Semantic-Web-Technologien. Wirtschaftsinformatik 47:278–284. doi: 10.1007/BF03254915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harzallah M, Berio G, Opdahl AL (2012) New perspectives in ontological analysis: guidelines and rules for incorporating modelling languages into UEML. Inf Syst 37:484–507. doi: 10.1016/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hepp M, Roman D (2007) An ontology framework for semantic business process management. Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2007, 27.
  30. Hepp M, Leymann F, Domingue J, Wahler A, Fensel D (2005) Semantic business process management: a vision towards using semantic web services for business process management. IEEE ICEBE. IEEE, Beijing, pp 535–540Google Scholar
  31. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2010) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105Google Scholar
  32. Hofferer P (2007) Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: ECIS 2007 Proceedings, 174.
  33. Leutgeb A, Utz W, Woitsch R, Fill H-G (2007) Adaptive processes in e-government—a field report about semantic-based approaches from the EU-project FIT. ICEIS 2007. Proceedings of ninth international conference on enterprise information system, vol EIS. Funchal, Madeira, pp 264–269Google Scholar
  34. Lindland OI, Sindre G, Solvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw 11:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller GA (1995) WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM 38:39–41. doi: 10.1145/219717.219748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moody D (2003) The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003 Proceedings, 79.
  37. Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modelling and telos. In: Loucopoulos P, Zicari R (eds) Concept model databases, CASE. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 49–68Google Scholar
  38. Object Manament Group (OMG) (2011) Business process modeling notation specification Version 2.0 (formal/2011-01-03)Google Scholar
  39. Opdahl AL, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Ontological evaluation of the uml using the bunge–wand–weber model. Softw Syst Model 1:43–67Google Scholar
  40. Opdahl AL, Berio G, Harzallah M, Matulevicius R (2012) An ontology for enterprise and information systems modelling. Appl Ontol 7:49–92. doi: 10.3233/ao-2011-0101 Google Scholar
  41. Pfeiffer D (2007) Constructing comparable conceptual models with domain specific languages. In: ECIS 2007 Proceedings, 154.
  42. Pinggera J, Zugal S, Weber B (2010) Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform-tool paper. In: Mutschler B, Recker J, Wieringa R, Ralyté J, Plebani P (eds) CAiSE 2010 Workshop ER-POIS, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  43. Pittke F, Leopold H, Mendling J (2013) Spotting terminology deficiencies in process model repositories. In: Nurcan S et al (eds) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 147. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 292–307Google Scholar
  44. Ruy FB, Reginato CC, Santos VA, Falbo RA, Guizzardi G (2015) Ontology engineering by combining ontology patterns. In: Johannesson P, Lee M, Liddle S, Opdahl A, Pastor López Ó (eds) Conceptual modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9381. Springer, Cham, pp 173–186Google Scholar
  45. Suárez-Figueroa MC, Gómez-Pérez A, Motta E, Gangemi A (2012) Ontology engineering in an networked world. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas O, Fellmann MAM, Fellmann MAM (2009) Semantic process modeling—design and implementation of an ontology-based representation of business processes. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1:438–451. doi: 10.1007/s12599-009-0078-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Uschold M, King M, Moralee S, Zorgios Y (1998) The enterprise ontology. Knowl Eng Rev Spec Issue Putt Ontol Use 13:31–89Google Scholar
  48. Winkler W (1990) String comparator metrics and enhanced decision rules in the Fellegi–Sunter model of record linkageGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu ESK (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE international symposium on requirement engineering, pp 226–235Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederik Gailly
    • 1
  • Nadejda Alkhaldi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sven Casteleyn
    • 3
  • Wouter Verbeke
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Universitat Jaume ICastellonSpain

Personalised recommendations