Advertisement

Formalizing Linguistic Conventions for Conceptual Models

  • Jörg Becker
  • Patrick Delfmann
  • Sebastian Herwig
  • Łukasz Lis
  • Armin Stein
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5829)

Abstract

A precondition for the appropriate analysis of conceptual models is not only their syntactic correctness but also their semantic comparability. Assuring comparability is challenging especially when models are developed by different persons. Empirical studies show that such models can vary heavily, especially in model element naming, even if they express the same issue. In contrast to most ontology-driven approaches proposing the resolution of these differences ex-post, we introduce an approach that avoids naming differences in conceptual models already during modeling. Therefore we formalize naming conventions combining domain thesauri and phrase structures based on a lin-guistic grammar. This allows for guiding modelers automatically during the modeling process using standardized labels for model elements. Our approach is generic, making it applicable for any modeling language.

Keywords

Conceptual Modeling Naming Conventions Linguistics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lawrence, R., Barker, K.: Integrating Relational Database Schemas using a Standardized Dictionary. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM symposium on Applied computing (SAC), Las Vegas (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hadar, I., Soffer, P.: Variations in conceptual modeling: classification and ontological analysis. Journal of the AIS 7(8), 568–592 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phalp, K., Shepperd, M.: Quantitative analysis of static models of processes. Journal of Systems and Software 52(2-3), 105–112 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., Majeed, B.: Business process analysis and optimization: beyond reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 38(1), 69–82 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M.: A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity Rela-tionship Model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10(6), 650–663 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhargava, H.K., Kimbrough, S.O., Krishnan, R.: Unique Name Violations, a Problem for Model Integration or You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. ORSA Journal on Computing 3(2), 107–120 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, P.P.-S.: The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: Guarino, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, Trento, pp. 3–15 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greco, G., Guzzo, A., Pontieri, L., Saccá, D.: An ontology-driven process modeling framework. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 13–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly semantic annotation in business process mod-eling. In: Weske, M., Hacid, M.-S., Godart, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Human-Friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking (Hf-SDDM 2007). 8th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE 2007), Nancy, pp. 260–271 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    White, S.A., Miers, D.: BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide. Understanding and Using BPMN. Lighthouse Point (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Höfferer, P.: Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: Österle, H., Schelp, J., Winter, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, pp. 1620–1631 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring Similarity between Semantic Busi-ness Process Models. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM) 2007, Ballarat (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Ontology Based Business Process Description. In: Enter-prise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability, Proceedings of the Open Interop Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability, Co-located with CAiSE 2005 Conference, Porto (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A Relationship-Driven Frame-work for Model Merging. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling in Software Engi-neering. 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, Minneapolis (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosemann, M.: Complexity Management in Process Models. Language-specific Modelling Guidelines [in German: Komplexitätsmanagement in Prozeßmodellen. Methodenspezifische Gestaltungsempfehlungen für die Informationsmodellierung], Wiesbaden (1996) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kugeler, M.: Organisational Design with Conceptual Models. Modelling Conventions and Reference Process Model for Business Process Reengineering [in German: Informa-tionsmodellbasierte Organisationsgestaltung. Modellierungskonventionen und Referenzvorgehensmodell zur prozessorientierten Reorganisation], Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosemann, M.: Preparation of Process Modeling. In: Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Process Management – A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, Berlin, pp. 41–78 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rizopoulos, N., Mçbrien, P.: A General Approach to the Generation of Conceptual Model Transformations. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bögl, A., Kobler, M., Schrefl, M.: Knowledge Acquisition from EPC Models for Extraction of Process Patterns in Engineering Domains. In: Proceedings of the Multi-Conference on Information Systems [in German: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik] 2008 (MKWI 2008), Munich (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS – Business Process Modelling, 3rd edn., Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmid, H.: Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on New Methods in Natural Language Processing, Manchester, pp. 44–49 (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Re-search. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaplan, R.M.: Syntax. In: Mitkov, R. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of computational lin-guistics, Oxford, pp. 70–90 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Automotive Thesaurus, http://automotivethesaurus.com
  29. 29.
    Tradeport – Reference Library for Global Trade, http://tradeport.org/library
  30. 30.
    WWW Virtual Library: Logistics, http://logisticsworld.com/logistics/glossary.htm
  31. 31.
    ISO: ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base (1982) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Patrick Delfmann
    • 1
  • Sebastian Herwig
    • 1
  • Łukasz Lis
    • 1
  • Armin Stein
    • 1
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS)University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations