Advertisement

Ontological Considerations About the Representation of Events and Endurants in Business Models

  • Giancarlo GuizzardiEmail author
  • Nicola Guarino
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9850)

Abstract

Different disciplines have been established to deal with the representation of entities of different ontological natures: the business process modeling discipline focuses mostly on event-like entities, and, in contrast, the (structural) conceptual modeling discipline focuses mostly on object-like entities (known as endurants in the ontology literature). In this paper, we discuss the impact of the event vs. endurant divide for conceptual models, showing that a rich ontological account is required to bridge this divide. Accounting for the ontological differences in events and endurants as well as their relations can lead to a more comprehensive representation of business reality.

Keywords

Events Endurants Reification Conceptual modeling Ontology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is partially funded by the Brazilian Research Funding Agencies CNPq (grants # 311313/2014-0, 485368/2013-7, 312158/2015-7 and 461777/2014-2) and FAPES (# 69382549). The authors would like to thank Roel Wieringa, Alex Borgida and John Mylopoulos for comments and fruitful discussions on the topics of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Casati, R., Varzi, A.: Events. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/events/
  2. 2.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work - Modelling, Communication, and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Activity-centric and artifact-centric process model roundtrip. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 171, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, R., Bhattacharya, K., Wu, F.Y.: Modeling business contexture and behavior using business artifacts. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 324–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. Bull. IEEE Comput. Soc. Tech. Committee Data Eng. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olivé, A., Raventós, R.: Modeling events as entities in object-oriented conceptual modeling languages. Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 243–262 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series No. 15, The Netherlands (2005). ISBN 90-75176-81-3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Staab, S. (ed.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 361–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships and events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: 15th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (2016, submitted)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., et al.: Towards ontological foundation for conceptual modeling: the unified foundational ontology (UFO) story. Appl. Ontol. 10(3–4), 259–271 (2015). IOS PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guerson, J.: Representing dynamic invariants in ontologically well-founded conceptual models. Master thesis, Computer Science Department, Federal University of Espírito, Santo, Brazil (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lombard, L.B.: Events: A Metaphysical Study. Routledge, London (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy the Furniture of the World Ontology I. Springer, Heidelberg (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molnar, G.: Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006). Ed. by Stephen MumfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santos Jr., P.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: An ontology-based semantic foundation for ARIS EPCs. In: 25th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC 2010), Sierre, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martins, A.F., et al.: Using a Foundational Ontology to Address Ambiguity in Business Process Modeling. In: 7th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI 2011), Salvador, Brazil (2011). (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Can BPMN be used for making simulation models? In: Barjis, J., Eldabi, T., Gupta, A. (eds.) EOMAS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 88, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Towards and ontological foundation of discrete event simulation. In: 16th International Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nardi, J., et al.: A Commitment-Based Reference Ontology for Services Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azevedo, C., et al.: Modeling Resources and Capabilities in Enterprise Architecture: A Well-Founded Ontology-Based Proposal for ArchiMate Information Systems. Oxford University Press (OUP), Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Estañol, M., Queralt, A., Sancho, M.R., Teniente, E.: Artifact-centric business process models in UML. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 292–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simons, P.M.: Parts. An Essay in Ontology. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, J.: Events as property exemplifications. In: Action Theory, pp. 159–177. Reidel (1976)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moltmann, F.: Events tropes and truthmaking. Philos. Stud. 134, 363–403 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wieringa, R., de Jonge, W.: Object identifiers, keys, and surrogates: object identifiers revisited. Theor. Pract. Object Syst. 1(2), 101–114 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kent, W.: Data and Reality. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ravin, Y., Leacock, C.: Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olivé, À.: Relationship reification: a temporal view. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 396–410. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations