Advertisement

Relations in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling

  • Claudenir M. FonsecaEmail author
  • Daniele Porello
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
  • Nicola Guarino
Conference paper
  • 756 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)

Abstract

For over a decade now, a community of researchers has contributed to the ontological foundations of Conceptual Modeling by participating to the development of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and the UFO-based modeling language OntoUML, which have been successfully employed in a number of different sectors. The empirical feedback from these experiences led us to reconsider UFO’s theory of relations, proposing a new theory that has already been applied to model subtle notions in the business domain, such as value, risk, service, and contract. In this paper, we advance a first formal characterization of this new theory, which is then used to design a new metamodel for OntoUML.

Keywords

Relations Relationships Ontology-driven conceptual modeling OntoUML UFO 

References

  1. 1.
    Bera, P., Evermann, J.: Guidelines for using UML association classes and their effect on domain understanding in requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 19(1), 63–80 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Evermann, J.: The association construct in conceptual modelling – an analysis using the bunge ontological model. In: Pastor, O., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11431855_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitting, M., Mendelsohn, R.L.: First-Order Modal Logic, vol. 277. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffo, C., et al.: From an ontology of service contracts to contract modeling in enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 21st EDOC (2017)Google 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., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships and events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: Adorni, G., Cagnoni, S., Gori, M., Maratea, M. (eds.) AI*IA 2016. LNCS, vol. 10037, pp. 237–249. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49130-1_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guarino, N., et al.: On the ontological nature of REA core relations. In: Proceedings of 12th VMBO (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guarino, N., Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G.: Reification and truthmaking patterns. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 151–165. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Telematica Instituut/CTIT (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: What’s in a relationship: an ontological analysis. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 83–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guizzardi, G., et al.: Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: the unified foundational ontology (UFO) story. Appl. Ontol. 10(3–4), 259–271 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C.M., Benevides, A.B., Almeida, J.P.A., Porello, D., Sales, T.P.: Endurant types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling: towards OntoUML 2.0. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 136–150. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hovda, P.: What is classical mereology? J. Philos. Log. 38(1), 55–82 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39390-0CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porello, D., Guizzardi, G.: Towards a cognitive semantics of types. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10640, pp. 428–440. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Porello, D., Guizzardi, G.: Towards an ontological modelling of preference relations. In: Ghidini, C., Magnini, B., Passerini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) AI*IA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11298, pp. 152–165. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russell, B.: Philosophical Essays. Routledge, Abingdon (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sales, T.P.: Ontology validation for managers. Master’s thesis, UFES (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sales, T.P., Baião, F., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The common ontology of value and risk. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 121–135. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Varzi, A.: Mereology. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verdock, M., et al.: Comparing traditional conceptual modeling with ontology-driven conceptual modeling: an empirical study. Inf. Syst. 81, 92–103 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Wand, Y., et al.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Syst. (TODS) 24(4), 494–528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, X., et al.: Towards an ontology of software: a requirements engineering perspective. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Rio de Janeiro (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudenir M. Fonseca
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniele Porello
    • 2
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
    • 3
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 3
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  1. 1.Conceptual and Cognitive Modeling Research Group (CORE)Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly
  3. 3.NEMOFederal University of Espírito SantoVitoriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations