Advertisement

Endurant Types in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling: Towards OntoUML 2.0

  • Giancarlo GuizzardiEmail author
  • Claudenir M. Fonseca
  • Alessander Botti Benevides
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
  • Daniele Porello
  • Tiago Prince Sales
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11157)

Abstract

For over a decade now, a community of researchers has contributed to the development of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) - aimed at providing foundations for all major conceptual modeling constructs. This ontology has led to the development of an Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling language dubbed OntoUML, reflecting the ontological micro-theories comprising UFO. Over the years, UFO and OntoUML have been successfully employed in a number of academic, industrial and governmental settings to create conceptual models in a variety of different domains. These experiences have pointed out to opportunities of improvement not only to the language itself but also to its underlying theory. In this paper, we take the first step in that direction by revising the theory of types in UFO in response to empirical evidence. The new version of this theory shows that many of the meta-types present in OntoUML (differentiating Kinds, Roles, Phases, Mixins, etc.) should be considered not as restricted to Substantial types but instead should be applied to model Endurant Types in general, including Relator types, Quality types and Mode types. We also contribute a formal characterization of this fragment of the theory, which is then used to advance a metamodel for OntoUML 2.0. Finally, we propose a computational support tool implementing this updated metamodel.

Keywords

OntoUML UFO Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Nicola Guarino for the fruitful discussions; and CNPq, CAPES, and FAPES for funding. The third author was supported by the grant No 71024352.

References

  1. 1.
    Blums, I., Weigand, H.: Financial reporting by a shared ledger. In: 8th International Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry (FOMI) (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    do Carmo, A.P., Zamperini, T., de Mello, M.R., de Castro Leal, A.L., Garcia, A.S.: Ontologia das coisas para espaços inteligentes baseados em visão computacional. In: 9th Brazilian Ontology Research Seminar (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Using reference domain ontologies to define the real-world semantics of domain-specific languages. In: Jarke, M., et al. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 488–502. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Fonseca, C.M., Guizzardi, G.: Multi-level ontology-based conceptual modeling. Data Knowl. Eng. 109, 3–24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitting, M., Mendelsohn, R.L.: First-Order Modal Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 277. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5292-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: “We Need to Discuss the Relationship”: revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 279–294. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An overview of ontoclean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 201–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Telematica Instituut/CTIT (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Almeida, J.P.A.A., Guizzardi, R.S.: Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: the unified foundational ontology (UFO) story. Appl. Ontol. 10(3–4), 259–271 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moltmann, F.: Events, tropes and truthmaking. Philos. Stud. 134, 363–403 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rybola, Z.: Towards OntoUML for software engineering: transformation of OntoUML into relational databases. Czech Technical University in Prague (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verdonck, M.: Ontology-driven conceptual modeling: model comprehension, ontology selection, and method complexity. Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Applied Economics Program of Ghent University, Belgium (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verdonck, M., Gailly, F.: Insights on the use and application of ontology and conceptual modeling languages in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 83–97. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zamborlini, V., Betti, A., van den Heuvel, C.: Toward a core conceptual model for (Im)material cultural heritage in the golden agents project. In: 1st International Workshop on Understanding Events Semantics in Cultural Heritage (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Claudenir M. Fonseca
    • 1
  • Alessander Botti Benevides
    • 2
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 2
  • Daniele Porello
    • 1
  • Tiago Prince Sales
    • 3
  1. 1.Conceptual and Cognitive Modeling Research Group (CORE)Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.NEMOFederal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil
  3. 3.DISIUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations