Advertisement

An Application of Philosophy in Software Modelling and Future Information Systems Development

  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
  • Greg Walkerden
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 148)

Abstract

The influence of mainstream philosophy on conceptual modelling and on modelling language development has historically been arcane or, at best, not recognized, whilst modellers might in fact implicitly espouse one particular philosophical tenet. This paper describes and discusses philosophical stances applied to conceptual modeling in order to make such influences explicit so that we, as conceptual modellers, can take the next step.

Keywords

concepts modelling philosophy ontology engineering conceptual modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 16–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Systematic stereotype usage. Software and System Modelling 2(3), 153–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Locke, J.: An essay concerning human understanding, Digireads, Kansas (1690/2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, B.: Beyond concepts: ontology as reality representation. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) Procs. FOIS 2004, pp. 73–84. IOS Press (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-use. Butterworth Heineman, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Univ. Chicago Press (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (last major revision) (2011), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/ (accessed September 3, 2012)
  8. 8.
    Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds.): Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locke, J.: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1690, 1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hume, D.: A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1739, 1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan, New York (1953)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peacocke, C.: A Study of Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eriksson, O., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Rethinking the meaning of identifiers in information infrastructures. J. Assoc. Info. Systems 11(8), 433–454 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: On the Mathematics of Modelling, Metamodelling, Ontologies and Modelling Languages, Springer Briefs in Computer Science. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Eriksson, O., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ptolemaic metamodelling? The need for a paradigm shift. In: Cueva Lovelle, J.M., et al. (eds.) Progressions and Innovations in Model-Driven Software Engineering. IGI Global (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shan, L., Zhu, H.: Unifying the semantics of models and meta-models in the multi-layered UML meta-modelling hierarchy. Int. J. Softw. Informat. 6(2), 163–200 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Reidel, Boston (1977)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wand, Y.: Ontology as a foundation for meta-modelling and method engineering. Inf. Software Technol. 38, 281–287 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A template for defining enterprise modelling constructs. Journal of Database Management 15(2), 39–73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mellor, D.H., Oliver, A. (eds.): Properties. Oxford Univ. Press (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Partridge, C.: Personal communication (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge Univ. Press (1969)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Towards Ontological Foundations for Agent Modelling Concepts Using the Unified Fundational Ontology (UFO). In: Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3508, pp. 110–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowe, E.J.: The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford Univ. Press (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Descartes, R.: Principia philosophiae (Principles of Philosophy) (1644)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guizzardi, G., Masolo, C., Borgo, S.: In defense of a trope-based ontology for conceptual modeling: An example with the foundations of attributes, weak entities and datatypes. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 112–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of some fundamental information systems concepts. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Minneapolis (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5, 203–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baldinger, K.: Semantic Theory: Towards a Modern Semantics. Palgrave Macmillan (1980)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sowa, J.F.: Ontology, metadata, and semiotics, Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1867, pp. 55–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. CTIT PhD Thesis Series, No. 05-74, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ogden, C.K., Richards, I.A.: The Meaning of Meaning. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York (1923)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers of C. S. Peirce. In: Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., Burks, A. (eds.) 8 vols. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ullmann, S.: Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1964)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jackson, M.: Some Notes on Models and Modelling. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Mylopoulos Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 68–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilmont, I., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Exploring intuitive modelling behaviour. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R., et al. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 301–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J. Sys. Softw. 80(11), 1778–1796 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lorenzatti, A., Abel, M., Fiorini, S.R., Bernardes, A.K., dos Santos Scherer, C.M.: Ontological primitives for visual knowledge. In: da Rocha Costa, A.C., Vicari, R.M., Tonidandel, F. (eds.) SBIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6404, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lorenzatti, A., Santin, C.E., Paesi da Silva, O., Abel, M.: A representation frame-work for visual knowledge. In: Vieira, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of Joint IV Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and VI International Workshop on Metamodels, Ontologies and Semantic Technologies, CEUR Workshop Procs., vol. 776, pp. 177–182 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Austin, J.L.: How To Do Things With Words. Oxford Univ. Press (1962)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Frege, G.: Über Begriff und Gegenstand (On Concept and Object). In: Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, vol. XVI, pp. 192–205. Fues’s Verlag (1892) (transl. Geach and Black, 1952)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    OMG: OMG Unified Modeling LanguageTM (OMG UML), Infrastructure Version 2.4.1, OMG Document Number: formal/2011-08-05, 230pp (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lilly, L.: Use case pitfalls: top 10 problems from real projects using use cases. In: Firesmith, D., et al. (eds.) Procs. TOOLS 30, pp. 174–183. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press (1999)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, Databases and CASE, ch. 4, pp. 49–68. Wiley (1992)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.): The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. From a Historical Perspective towards the Future of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Incipit: ConML Technical Specification. ConML 1.3 (2013), http://www.conml.org/Resources_TechSpec.aspx
  49. 49.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A conceptual modelling language for the humanities and social sciences. In: Rolland, C., et al. (eds.) Sixth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2012), pp. 396–401. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 1
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
    • 2
  • Greg Walkerden
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit)Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)Santiago de CompostelaSpain
  3. 3.Dept Environment & GeographyMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations