Extending the Foundations of Ontology-Based Conceptual Modeling with a Multi-level Theory

  • Victorio A. CarvalhoEmail author
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
  • Claudenir M. Fonseca
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9381)


Since the late 1980s, there has been a growing interest in the use of foundational ontologies to provide a sound theoretical basis for the discipline of conceptual modeling. This has led to the development of ontology-based conceptual modeling techniques whose modeling primitives reflect the conceptual categories defined in a foundational ontology. The ontology-based conceptual modeling language OntoUML, for example, incorporates the distinctions underlying the taxonomy of types in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) (e.g., kinds, phases, roles, mixins etc.). This approach has focused so far on the support to types whose instances are individuals in the subject domain, with no provision for types of types (or categories of categories). In this paper we address this limitation by extending the Unified Foundational Ontology with the MLT multi-level theory. The UFO-MLT combination serves as a foundation for conceptual models that can benefit from the ontological distinctions of UFO as well as MLT’s basic concepts and patterns for multi-level modeling. We discuss the impact of the extended foundation to multi-level conceptual modeling.


Ontology Conceptual modeling Multi-level modeling 



This research is funded by the Brazilian Research Funding Agencies CNPq (grants number 311313/2014-0, 485368/2013-7 and 461777/2014-2) and CAPES/CNPq (402991/2012-5). Victorio A. Carvalho is funded by CAPES.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. University of Twente, Enschede (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg, E., Lingreen, P. (eds.) Information System Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, Amsterdam (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inf. Syst. 3, 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N. (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Proceedings FOIS 1998, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Proceedings of 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling, New Zealand (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel modeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Toronto, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling (2015).
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Odell, J.: Power types. J. Object-Oriented Program. 7(2), 8–12 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pirotte, A., Zimanyi, E., Massart, D., Yakusheva, T.: Materialization: a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 630–641 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(3), 345–359 (2008). Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG : UML superstructure specification – version 2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nardi, J.C., Falbo, R., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., et al.: A commitment-based reference ontology for services. Inf. Syst. 51, 1 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pereira, D., Almeida, J.P.A.: Representing organizational structures in an enterprise architecture language. In: 6th Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victorio A. Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 1
  • Claudenir M. Fonseca
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 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