Are Global Understanding, Communication, and Information Management in Information Systems Possible?

A Conceptual Modelling View - Problems and Proposals for Solutions
  • Hannu Kangassalo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1565)


A recent trend in thinking about information systems and data bases is the idea that shared knowledge forms a globally understood phenomenon, based on global communication facilitated by the Internet and maintained by the global information management. The idea sounds good, but difficult ontological, epistemological, logical, and methodological problems are penetrating out. One is based on the way how human concepts are created. Another problem is that the point of view is not usually taken into account properly. The third one is that a system of concepts on which the information system is built seems to form an unique entirety, limiting the applicability of constructs of the system of concepts outside the borders of the information system. We study the idea and analyse some of the problems that seem to be revealed. The answer to the question in the title seems to be negative, but many improvements to information systems can be made. Systematic studies of concepts, systems of concepts and their descriptions are regarded as necessary. Information systems should be defined on the basis of their conceptual content, not on the basis of the data flow and linguistic representations of occurrences, as it is done today.


Information Management Information Requirement Conceptual Schema Conceptual Content Information Demand 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Brown, H. I., (1986) Sellars, Concepts and Conceptual Change. Synthese 68: 275–307.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bubenko, J., Kirikova, M., (1995) “Worlds” in Requirements Aquisition and Modelling. In Kangassalo, H., Jaakkola, H., Ohsuga, S., Wangler, B., (Eds.) Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases VI. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 159–174.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bunge, M., (1983) Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Volume 6. Epistemology & Methodology II. D Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gaines, B.R., Shaw, M.L.G., (1993) Knowledge Acquisition Tools based on Personal Construct Psychology, Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(1) 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Guarino N., Giaretta P., (1995) Ontologies and Knowledge Bases: Towards a Terminological Clarification. In Mars, NJI, (Ed), Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hautamäki, A., (1986) Points of View and Their Logical Analysis. Acta Philosophica Fennica. Vol. 41, Societas Philosophica Fennica, Ph.D. Dissertation, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Kangassalo, H., (1992/1993) COMIC-A System and Methodology for Conceptual Modelling and Information Construction. Data & Knowledge Engineering 9, 287–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kangassalo, H., (1979) Logical and Semantical Properties of Environmental Situations for Stating Information Requirements. In Schneider, H.-J., (Ed.) Formal Models and Practical Tools for Information Systems Design. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kangassalo, H., (1978) On the Definition and Satisfaction of Information Requirements. Thesis for the Degree of Licentiate in Philosophy. Department of Mathematical Sciences / Computer Science. University of Tampere, Finland, June 1978. 157pages. (In Finnish).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kangassalo, H., (1996) Conceptual Description for Information Modelling Based on Intensional Containment Relation. In Baader, F., Buchheit, M., Jeusfeld, M. A., Nutt, W. (Eds) Working Notes of the ECAI-96 Workshop on Knowledge Representation Meets Databases (KRDB-96). Budabest, Hungary, August 12-13, 1996. pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kauppi, R., (1967) Einführung in die Theorie der Begriffssysteme. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Ser. A, Vol.15, Universität Tampere, Tampere.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kelly, G. H., (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Two volumes.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Klausmaier, H.J., (1990.) Conceptualizing. In Jones, B.F., Idol, L. (Eds)., Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 93–138.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kuhn, T.S., (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    LePore, E., (1996) Semantic holism. In Audi, R. (General Editor). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 724–725.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Loar, B., (1996) Meaning. In Audi, R. (General Ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 471–476.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Nauta, D., Jr., (1972) The Meaning of Information. Mouton & Co. The Hague.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Palomäki. J., (1994) From Concepts to Concept Theory. Discoveries, Connections, and Results. PhD Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis. Ser. A, Vol. 416, University of Tampere, Tampere.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Ohsuga, S., (1998) Multi-Strata Model and Its Applications-Particularly to Automatic Programming. In Charrel, P.-J., Jaakkola, H., Kangassalo, H., Kawaguchi, E., (Eds.). Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases IX. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 83–99.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Rantala, V., (1995) Explanatory Translation and Conceptual Change. In Koskinen, I., Oesch, E., Vaden, T., (Eds.), Proc. of the International Conference on Methods of Reading. University of Tampere, October 6-7, 1994. Tampere.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Rantala, V., (1995) Translation and Scientific Change. In Herfel W. E., Krajewski, W., Niiniluoto, I., Wojcicki, R. (Eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Proc. of AFOS’94 Workshop and IUHPS’94 Conference. Amsterdam—Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Ruse, M., (1995) Theory. In Honderich T.,(Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Sellars, W., (1963) Science, Perception and Reality. Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Stegmüller, W., (1976) The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    The IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO, (1996) A Framework of Information System Concepts. December, available at: Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannu Kangassalo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations