Principles of Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling Method

  • Remigijus GustasEmail author
  • Prima Gustiené
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 275)


To obtain value from the graphical representations that are used by different stakeholders during the system development process, they must be integrated. This is important for achieving a holistic understanding about system specification. Integration can be reached via modelling process. Currently, most of information system modelling methods present different modelling aspects in disparate modelling dimensions and therefore it is difficult to achieve semantic integrity of various diagrams. In this paper, we present the principles of semantically integrated conceptual modelling method for information system analysis and design. The foundation of this modelling method is based on interaction flows. This way of modelling is critical for the identification of discontinuity and inconsistency in information systems specifications. It also provides possibility to integrate business processes and business data, which is necessary for the integration of various architectural domains and to reach the holistic view of enterprise architecture. We have explained in object-oriented terms how interactive, structural and transitional aspects are merged. We also demonstrated the interpretation of various patterns, in terms of semantically integrated conceptual modelling method. It was shown that the method has sufficient expressive power to cover some special cases, which do not match the standard pattern of transaction. The inference rules of interactions help in reasoning about system decomposition. In this method, decomposition is graphically described as classification, inheritance or composition of concepts. SICM method is based on a single type of diagram, which enables reasoning about integration with the help of a special set of inference rules. The ultimate goal of this paper is to present the generic principles for computation- neutral modeling of service interactions.


Conceptual modelling Modelling aspects Service interactions Consistency Value flows Inference rules Decomposition Object transitions 


  1. Blaha, M., Rumbaugh, J.: Object-Oriented Modelling and Design with UML. Pearson, London (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(4), 384–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Ontology II: A World of Systems, vol. 4. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz, J.L.G.: DEMO: towards a discipline of organisation engineering. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128, 351–363 (2001). Elsevier ScienceCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz, J.L.G.: The Deep Structure of Business Processes. Commun. ACM 9(5), 59–64 (2006a)Google Scholar
  7. Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkman, R.M., Quartel, D.A.C., van Sinderen, M.J.: Consistency in multi-viewpoints design of enterprise information systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(7–8), 737–752 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology based object-oriented domain modeling: representing behavior. J. Database Manage. 20(1), 48–77 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrario, R., Guarino, N.: Towards an ontological foundation for services science. In: Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Traverso, P. (eds.) FIS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5468, pp. 152–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-00985-3_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao, S., Krogstie, J.: A combined framework for development of business process support systems. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05352-8_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gemino, A.: To be or maybe to be: an empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Information Systems Division, Saskatoon, pp. 33–44 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. Glinz, M.: Problems and deficiencies of UML as a requirements specification language. In: Proceedings of the 10-th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, San Diego, pp. 11–22 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45816-6_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guizzardi, G.: Modal aspects of object types and part-whole relations and the de re/de dicto distinction. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 5–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72988-4_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gustas, R., Gustiené, P.: Service-oriented foundation and analysis patterns for conceptual modelling of information systems. In: Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, G., Lang, M., Conboy, K., Barry, C. (eds.) Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education, vol. 1, pp. 249–265. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Gustas, R., Gustiené, P.: Towards the enterprise engineering approach for information system modelling across organisational and technical boundaries. In: Piattini, M., Camp, O., Filipe, J., Hammoudi, S. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems V, pp. 235–252. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Gustas, R., Gustiené, P.: Pragmatic-driven approach for service-oriented analysis and design. In: Johanesson, P., Söderström, E. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering: From Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 97–128. IGI Global, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustas, R., Gustiené, P.: Conceptual modeling method for separation of concerns and integration of structure and behavior. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 3(1), 48–77 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustas, R.: A look behind conceptual modeling constructs in information system analysis and design. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 1(1), 78–107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustiené, P.: Development of a new service-oriented modelling method for information systems analysis and design. Doctoral thesis, Karlstad University Studies (2010)Google Scholar
  23. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., Vliet, H.: Business modelling is not process modelling. In: Liddle, S.W., Mayr, H.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1921, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45394-6_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammer, M.: Reengineering work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Bus. Rev. 68, 104–112 (1990)Google Scholar
  25. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of ‘Semantics’? IEEE Comput. 37, 64–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobson, I., Ng, P.-W.: Aspect-oriented software development with use cases. Pearson Education, Pennsylvania (2005)Google Scholar
  27. Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  28. Leite, I.C.S.P., Freeman, P.A.: Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 17(12), 1253–1269 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, J., Odell, J.J: Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation. Prentice Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  30. McCarthy, W.E.: The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Acc. Rev. LVII(3), 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  31. Moody, D., Sindre, G.: Managing complexity in object oriented analysis: adapting UML for modelling large scale information systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 328–338. School of Management Information Systems (ECU), Perth (2003)Google Scholar
  32. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 35–46. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  33. OMG: Unified Modeling Language Superstructure, version 2.2 (2009). Accessed 19 Jan 2010
  34. Snoeck, M.: Sequence constraints in business modelling and business process modelling. In: Enterprise Information System, vol. 4, pp. 194–202. Kluwer, Hingham (2003)Google Scholar
  35. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 9(4), 1–19 (1997)Google Scholar
  37. Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information system architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations