Modelling Languages: Perspectives and Abstraction Mechanisms

  • John Krogstie


In this chapter, we will give an overview of general mechanisms and perspectives used in conceptual modelling. We will first look upon modelling as a type of hierarchical abstraction. We present main abstraction mechanisms used in modelling languages (generalisation, aggregation, classification, association). Meta-modelling as a type of classification is discussed specifically, as is influence of philosophical ontology through BWW and UEML. We survey different modelling languages according to the main phenomena they describe, what we call the main modelling perspective of a modelling language. We have identified eight perspectives (behavioural, functional, structural, goal and rule, object-oriented, communicational, actor and role and topological). We discuss process modelling according to these perspectives before finally we discuss how to apply several such perspectives at the same time in an integrated manner, including examples of different approaches for integrating different perspectives in one language both for design modelling (UML) and enterprise modelling (EEML).


Modelling Language Business Process Management Object Management Group Enterprise Modelling State Transition Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aagesen, G., Krogstie, J.: Analysis and design of business processes using BPMN. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management. International Handbooks of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Abdel-Hamid, T.K., Madnick, S.E.: Lessons learned from modeling the dynamics of software development. Commun. ACM 32(12), 1426–1428 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ader, M., Lu, G., Pons, P., Monguio, J., Lopez, L., De Michelis, G., Grasso, M.A., Vlondakis, G.: WOOrks, an object-oriented workflow system for offices. Technical report, ITHACA technical report (1994)Google Scholar
  4. Albertsen, T., Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Tarasov, V.: The practice of competence modelling. In: van Bommel, P. (ed.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP 68, pp. 106–120. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Ambriola, V., Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Assessing process-centered software engineering environments. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6(3), 283–328 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R., Opdahl, A.L., Panetto, H., Verdecho, M.J.: The unified enterprise modelling language – overview and further work. Comput. Ind. 61, 99–111 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderl, R., Raßler, J.: PML, an object-oriented process modelling language. In: Computer-Aided Innovation (CAI); Gaetano Cascini, vol. 277, pp. 145–156. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: OWL. In: Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 67–92. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Auramäki, E., Hirschheim, R., Lyytinen, K.: Modelling offices through discourse analysis: the SAMPO approach. Comput. J. 35(4), 342–352 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press, Cambrige, MA (1962)Google Scholar
  11. Baas, N.A.: Hierarchical systems. Foundations of a mathematical theory and application. Technical report, Department of mathematics, The University of Trondheim, Norway (1976)Google Scholar
  12. Bailin, S.C.: An object-oriented requirements specification method. Commun. ACM 32(5), 608–623 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bardram, J., Bossen, C.: Mobility work: the spatial dimension of collaboration at a hospital. Comput. Support. Cooper. Work 14, 131–160 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bardram, J., Hansen, T.R., Soegaard, M.: AwareMedia – a shared interactive display supporting social, temporal, and spatial awareness in surgery. In: Proceedings of CSCW’06, 4–8 Nov, Banff, Alberta (2006)Google Scholar
  15. Benson et al.: (2000) Mathematical structure for reasoning about emergent organizations, CSCW2000 Workshop: Beyond Workflow Management: Supporting Dynamic Organizational Processes, Philadelphia, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  16. Berio, G., Harzallah, M.: Towards an integrating architecture for competence management. Comput. Ind. 58, 199–209 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bernstein, A.: How can cooperative work tools support dynamic group processes? Bridging the specificity frontier. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Boehm, B.W.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput. 21(5), 61–72 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bogia, D.P.: Supporting flexible, extensible task descriptions in and among tasks. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1995)Google Scholar
  21. Bolcer, G., Kaiser, G.: SWAP: leveraging the web to manage workflow. IEEE Internet Comput. 3(1), 85–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Booch, G.: Object Oriented Design with Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City (1991)Google Scholar
  23. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language: User Guide, Secondth edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  24. Bryant, T., Evans, A.: OO oversold: those objects of obscure desire. Inf. Softw. Technol. 36(1), 35–42 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bubenko, J.A., Jr., Rolland, C., Loucopoulos, P., DeAntonellis, V.: Facilitating fuzzy to formal requirements modelling. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE94), pp. 154–157, Colorado Springs, 18–22 April. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994),
  26. Bunge, M.A.: The Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Methodology of Levels. Elsevier, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  27. Bunge, M.A.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I – The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1977)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bunge, M.A.: Philosophical Dictionary. Prometheus Books, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  29. Button, G.: What’s wrong with speach act theory. Comput. Support. Cooper. Work 3(1), 39–42 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Carlsen, S.: Action port model: a mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: Third IFCIS Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’98), New York (1998)Google Scholar
  31. Carnap, R.: Meaning and Necessity: A study in Semantics and Model Logic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1947)Google Scholar
  32. Casey, E.S.: Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1993)Google Scholar
  33. Casey, E.S.: The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. University of California Press, Berkeley (1998)Google Scholar
  34. Castellani, X.: Overview of models defined with charts of concepts. In: Falkenberg, E., Lyytinen, K., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO4); An Integrated Discipline Emerging, 20–22 Sept 20–22, Leiden, pp. 235–256 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Cheetham, G., Chivers, G.E.: Professions, Competence and Informal Learning. Edgard Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham (2005)Google Scholar
  36. Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: towards a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Chung, L.: Dealing with security requirements during the development of information systems. In: Rolland, C., Bodart, F., Cauvet, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993, pp. 234–251. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  38. Coad, P., Yourdon, E.: Object-Oriented Analysis, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  39. Coleman, D., Hayes, F., Bear, S.: Introducing objectcharts or how to use statecharts in object-oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(1), 9–18 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Conradi, R., Jaccheri, M.L.: Process modelling languages. In: Software Process: Principles, Methodology and Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1500. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  41. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Daconta, M., Orbst, L., Smith, K.: The Semantic Web: A Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services and Knowledge Management. Wiley, London (2003)Google Scholar
  43. Dallons, G., Heymans, P., Pollet, I.: A template-based analysis of GRL. In: Proceedings of EMMSAD’05 (CAiSE*05), Tenth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, pp. 493–504 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. Davies, I.P., Green, S., Milton, K., Rosemann, M.: Analysing and comparing ontologies with meta models. In: Krogstie, J., Halpin, T., Siau, K. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 1–16. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  45. Davis, A.M.: A comparison of techniques for the specification of external system behaviour. Commun. ACM 31(9), 1098–1115 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Davis, A.M.: Software Requirements Analysis and Specification. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1990)Google Scholar
  47. Davis, R., King, J.: An overview of production systems. In: Elcock, E.W., Mitchie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence, pp. 300–332. Wiley, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  48. De Michelis, G., Grasso, M.A.: Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: the Milan conversation model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1994 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’94), pp. 89–100, Chapel Hill, NC, 22–26 Oct (1994)Google Scholar
  49. Derniame, J.C. (ed.): Software Process: Principles, Methodology and Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1500. Springer, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  50. Dietz, J.L.G.: Integrating management of human and computer resources in task processing organizations: a conceptual view. In: Nunamaker, J.F., Sprague, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICCS’27), pp. 723–733 Maui, Hawaii, 4–7 Jan. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  51. Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology – Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Dietz, J.L.G., Widdershoven, G.A.M.: A comparison of the linguistic theories of Searle and Habermas as a basis for communication supporting systems. In: van Riet, R.P., Meersman, R.A. (eds.) Linguistic Instruments in Knowledge Engineering, pp. 121–130. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  53. Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Modelling communication between cooperative systems. In: Iivari, J., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’95), Jyväskylä, Finland, 12–16 June 1995, pp. 140–153. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  54. Dossogne, A., Jeanmart, C.: Evaluation of ARIS and BPMN using the UEML approach. Master thesis, University of Namur (2007)Google Scholar
  55. Dourish, P.: Re-space-ing place: “place” and “space” ten years on proceedings of ACM conference. In: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’06, Banff, Canada, pp. 299–308. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  56. Dourish, P., Holmes, J., MacLean, A., Marqvardsen, P., Zbyslaw, A.: A freeflow: mediating between representation and action in workflow systems. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  57. Dowty, D.R., et al.: Introduction to Montague Semantic. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  58. Ellis, H.C., Hunt, R.R.: Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology, 5th edn. Brown and Benchmark, Madiso (1993)Google Scholar
  59. Embley, D.W., Jackson, R.B., Woodfield, S.N.: OO system analysis: is it or isn’t it? IEEE Softw. 12(3), 19–33 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. In: proceedings EMMSAD 2007. Proceedings of Twelfth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in System Analysis and Design, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 89–98 (2007)Google Scholar
  61. Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Voss. K.: A Framework of information system concepts – the FRISCO report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO. (1996). Cited Dec 2011
  62. Favre, L. (ed.): UML and the Unified Process. IRM Press, Hershey (2003)Google Scholar
  63. Feather, M.S.: Requirement reconnoitering at the juncture of domain and instance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’93), pp. 73–76, San Diego, 4–6 Jan (1993)Google Scholar
  64. Fickas, S.: Design issues in a rule-based system. J. Syst. Softw. 10(2), 113–123 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Findler, N.V. (ed.): Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computer. Academic, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM’94, pp. 456–463. ACM, NewYork (1994)Google Scholar
  67. FIPA-ACL: FIPA ACL message structure specification. Retrieved from (2002)
  68. Fleischmann, A.: What is S-BPM? In: Buchwald, H., Fleischmann, A., Seese, S., Stary, C. (eds.) S-BPM. CICS Band 85. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  69. Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., Winograd, T.: Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Syst. 6(2), 153–172 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  71. Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: Enterprise modeling. AI Mag. 19(3), 109–121 (2000)Google Scholar
  72. Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  73. Geerts, G.L., McCarthy, W.E.: An accounting object infrastructure for knowledge-based enterprise models. IEEE Intell. Syst. 14, 89–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Glance, N.S., Pagani, D.S., Pareschi, R.: Generalized process structure grammars (GPSG) for flexible representation of work. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  75. Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: An overview of declarative process modeling principles and languages. Commun. Syst. Inf. World Netw. 6, 51–58 (2009)Google Scholar
  76. Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen, K.: A language action view of information systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS’82), pp. 13–29, Ann Arbor, MI (1982)Google Scholar
  77. Gopalakrishnan, S., Sindre, G.: Diagram notations for mobile work processes. Presented at PoEM 2011, Oslo, Norway, 2–3 Nov (2011)Google Scholar
  78. Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Adapting UML activity diagrams for mobile work process modelling: experimental comparison of two notation alternatives. In: Proceedings of PoEM 2010. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  79. Gordijn, J., Yu, E., van der Raadt, B.: e-service design using i* and e3value. IEEE Softw. 23(3), 23–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Green, P.F.: An ontological analysis of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in Upper CASE tools. PhD thesis, Department of Commerce, University of Queensland (1996)Google Scholar
  81. Green, P.F., Rosemann, M.: An ontological evaluation of integrated process modelling, 1999. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’99, the 11th Conference on Advanced information Systems Engineering, Heidelberg/Germany, 14–18 June (1999)Google Scholar
  82. Grigoris, A. & v. Harmelen, F. Web Ontology Language: OWL, in Handbook On Ontologies, Eds. International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer, 2004, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  83. Grobstein, C.: Hierarchical order and neogenesis. In: Pattee, H.H. (ed.) Hierarchy Theory. Braziller, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  84. Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43(5–6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, vol. 015. Telematica Instituut, Enschede (2005)Google Scholar
  86. Guizzardi, G., Baião, F.A., Lopes, M., de Almeida, F.R.: The role of foundational ontologies for domain ontology engineering: an industrial case study in the domain of oil and gas exploration and production. IJISMD 1(2), 1–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  87. Gulla, J.A., Lindland, O.I., Willumsen, G.: PPP – an integrated CASE environment. In: Andersen, R., Bubenko, J.A., Jr., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’91), Trondheim, pp. 194–221 (1991)Google Scholar
  88. Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  89. Hagelstein, J., Rifaut, A.: A comparison of semantic models for collections. Technical report, Philips Research Lab, Brussels, Belgium (1987)Google Scholar
  90. Halpin, T.: Fact-oriented modeling: past, present and future. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  91. Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  92. Hammer, M., McLeod, D.: Database description with SDM: a semantic database model. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6(3), 351–386 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Harel, D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Progr. 8, 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable object modelling with statecharts. In: 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’96), pp. 246–257, Berlin, Germany, 25–29 March (1996)Google Scholar
  95. Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamed, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.: STATEMATE: a working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(4), 403–414 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Harrison, S., Dourish, P.: Re-place-ing space: the roles of space and place in collaborative systems. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’96, Boston, MA, pp. 67–76. ACM, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Harzallah, M., Berio, G., Opdahl. A.L.: Incorporating IDEF3 into the Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (UEML). In: Proceedings of the VORTE 2007, joint with EDOC07 (2007)Google Scholar
  98. Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modelling. O’Reilly, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  99. Henderson-Sellers, B., Atkinson, C., Firesmith, D.G.: Viewing the OML as a variant of the UML. In: Rumpe, B., France, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the UML’99, Fort Collins, CO. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1723, pp. 49–66. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  100. Heymans, P., Saval, G., Dallons, G., Pollet, I.: A template-based analysis of GRL. In: Advanced Topic in Database Research, vol. 5. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  101. Hommes, B.-J., van Reijswoud, V.: The quality of business process modelling techniques, In: Conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO), Leiden. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  102. Høydalsvik, G.M., Sindre, G.: On the purpose of object-oriented analysis. In: Paepcke, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’93), pp. 240–255. ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  103. Hruby, P.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  104. Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic database modeling: survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Comput. Surv. 19(3), 201–260 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Hull, D., Wolstencroft, K., Stevens, R., Goble, C.A., Pocock, M.R., Li, P., Oinn, T.: Taverna: a tool for building and running workflows of services. Nucleic Acids Res. 34(Web-Server-Issue), 729–732 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Jacobs, S., Jarke, M., Pohl, K.: Report on the first international IEEE symposium on requirements engineering (RE’93) San Diego, 4–6 Jan 1993. Autom. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 129–132 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Övergaard, G.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  108. Jarke, M., Bubenko, J.A., Jr., Rolland, C., Sutcliffe, A., Vassiliou, Y.: Theories underlying requirements engineering: an overview of NATURE at genesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’93), pp. 19–31, San Diego (1993)Google Scholar
  109. Kangassalo, H.: Are global understanding, communication and information management in information systems possible? In: Chen, P.P., Akoka, J., Kangassalo, H., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. Current Issues and Future Directions. LNCS 1565. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  110. Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., Retschitzegger, W.: Coordination in workflow management systems: a rule-based approach. In: Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications, pp. 99–119. Springer, Berlin/New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Kautz, K.: Debate forum editorial. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 18(1), 61–62 (2006)Google Scholar
  112. Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal modeling in requirements engineering: analysis and critique of current methods in information modeling methods and methodologies. In: Krogstie, J., Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  113. Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK). Wirtschaftsinformatik 89 (1992),
  114. Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.-P.: Domain-Specific Modelling: Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  115. King, J.L.: SimLanguage. Comput. Support. Cooper. Work 3(1), 51–54 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Klein, H., Lyytinen, K.: Towards a new understanding of data modelling. In: Floyd, F.C., Zűllighoven, H., Budde, R., Keil-Slawik, R. (eds.) Software Development and Reality Construction, pp. 203–217. Springer, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  117. Krogstie, J.: Integrated goal, data and process modeling: from TEMPORA to model-generated work-places. In: Johannesson, P., Søderstrøm, E. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering From Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 43–65. IGI, Hershey (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.: Interactive models for supporting networked organisations. Paper presented at the 16th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2004), Riga, Latvia, 9–11 June 2004Google Scholar
  119. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Utilizing deontic operators in information systems specifications. Requir. Eng. J. 1, 210–237 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Krogstie, J., McBrien, P., Owens, R., Seltveit, A.H.: Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches. Paper presented at the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’91), Trondheim, Norway, 1991Google Scholar
  121. Kung, C.H.: Object subclass hierarchy in SQL: a simple approach. Commun. ACM 33(7), 117–125 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kuntz, J.C., Christiansen, T.R., Cohen, G.P., Jin, Y., Levitt, R.E.: The virtual design team: a computational simulation model of project organizations. Commun. ACM 41(11), 84–91 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Larman, C.: Applying UML AND Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  124. Leppänen, M.: An ontological framework and a methodocal skeleton for method engineering: a contextual approach. PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä (2005)Google Scholar
  125. Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Loos, P., Allweyer, T.: Process orientation and object-orientation – an approach for integrating UML with event-driven process chains (EPC), University of Saarland, Homburg (1998)Google Scholar
  127. Loucopoulos, P., McBrien, P., Schumacker, F., Theodoulidis, B., Kopanas, V., Wangler, B.: Integrating database technology, rule-based systems and temporal reasoning for effective information systems: the TEMPORA paradigm. J. Inf. Syst. 1, 129–152 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Loy, P.H.: A comparison of object-oriented and structured development methods. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 15(1), 44–48 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Business Information Systems, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: On managing business processes variants. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(7), 642–664 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Marsan, M.A., et al. (eds.): Proceeding of the International workshop on Timed Petri Nets, Torino, Italy, 1985. IEEE Computer Society Press (1985)Google Scholar
  132. Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P., Opdahl, A.L.: Comparison of goal-oriented languages using the UEML approach. In: Panetto, H., Boudjlida, N. (eds.) Interoperability for Enterprise Software Applications, pp. 37–48. ISTE, London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P., Opdahl, A.L.: Comparing GRL and KAOS using the UEML approach. In: Concalves, R.J., Muller, J.P., Mertins, K., Zelm, M. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability II. New Challenges and Approaches, pp. 77–88. Springer, London (2007a)Google Scholar
  134. Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P., Opdahl, A.L.: Ontological analysis of KAOS using separation of reference. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Contemporary Issues in Database Design and Information Systems Development, pp. 37–51. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. McBrien, P., Seltveit, A.H.: Coupling process models and business rules. In: Sølvberg, A., Krogstie, J., Seltveit, A.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 WC on Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations (ISDO’95), pp. 201–217, Trondheim, Norway, 21–23 Aug 1995. Chapman & Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  136. McBrien, P., Niezette, M., Pantazis, D., Seltveit, A.H., Sundin, U., Theodoulidis, B., Tziallas, G., Wohed, R.: A rule language to capture and model business policy specifications. In: Andersen, R., Bubenko, J.A. Jr., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’91), Trondheim, pp. 307–318 (1991)Google Scholar
  137. McBrien, P., Seltveit, A.H., Wangler, B.: An entity-relationship model extended to describe historical information. In: Proceedings of CISMOD’92, Bangalore, India, July (1992)Google Scholar
  138. McCarthy, W.E.: The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Account. Rev. 57, 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  139. McCarty, J.F., Meidel, E.S.: ActiveMap: a visualization tool for location awareness to support informal interactions. In: Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing (HUC’99), 27–29 Sept 1999, Karlsruhe (1999)Google Scholar
  140. McGuinness, D.L.: Ontologies come of age. In: Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H., Wahlster, W. (eds.) Spinning the Semantic Web. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  141. Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F.: The action workflow approach to work flow management technology. In: Proceedings of CSCW’92, Toronto (1992)Google Scholar
  142. Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC markup language (EPML): an XML-based interchange format for event-driven process chains (EPC). Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 4, 245–263 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Mesarović, M.D., et al.: Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel, Systems. Academic, New York (1970)MATHGoogle Scholar
  144. Meyer, B.: Reality: a cousin twice removed. IEEE Comput. 29(7), 96–97 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Milton, S., Kazmierczak, E.: An ontology of data modelling languages: a study using a common-sense realistic ontology. J. Database Manag. 15(2), 19–38 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Kaasbøll, J.: Part-whole relationship categories and their application in object-oriented analysis. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 11(5), 779–797 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Mylopoulos, J., et al.: A language facility for designing database intensive applications. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 5(2), 185–207 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6), 483–497 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Nijssen, G.M., Halpin, T.A.: Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design. Prentice Hall, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  150. Nossum, A., Krogstie, J.: Integrated quality of models and quality of maps. Paper presented at the EMMSAD (2009)Google Scholar
  151. Olle, T.W., Hagelstein, J., MacDonald, I.G., Rolland, C., Sol, H.G., van Assche, F.J.M., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A.: Information Systems Methodologies. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1988)Google Scholar
  152. OMG: Unified modeling language v 2.0 OMG web site. (2006a)
  153. OMG: Semantics of business vocabulary and rules interim specification. Retrieved 1 Jan 2006 from (2006b)
  154. OMG: BPMN v2 specification. Technical report, OMG. In: White, S.A (ed) Introduction to BPMN. IBM Cooperation., Jan (2011)
  155. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. J. Syst. Softw. 57(2), 119–143 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge–Wand–Weber model. Softw. Syst. Model. 1, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  157. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: A taxonomy for real-world modeling concepts. Inf. Syst. 19(3), 229–241 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Facet models for problem analysis. In: Iivari, J., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’95), Jyväskylä, Finland, 12–16 June, pp. 54–67. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  159. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Facet modeling: an approach to flexible and integrated conceptual modeling. Inf. Syst. 22(5), 291–323 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B., Barbier, F.: Ontological analysis of whole-part relationships in OO models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 43(6), 387–399 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Ould, M.A.: Business Processes – Modeling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement. Wiley, Beverly Hills (1995)Google Scholar
  162. OWL: Web ontology language use cases and requirements. (2004)
  163. Parsaye, K., Chignell, M.: Expert Systems for Experts. Wiley, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  164. Parsons, J., Wand, Y.: Choosing classes in conceptual modeling. Commun. ACM 40(6), 63–69 (1997a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Parsons, J., Wand, Y.: Using objects for systems analysis. Commun. ACM 40(12), 104–110 (1997b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Peckham, J., Maryanski, F.: Semantic data models. ACM Comput. Surv. 20(3), 153–190 (1988)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Pepiot, G., et al.: A fuzzy approach for the evaluation of competences. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 112, 336–353 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Business Process Management Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Petri, C.A.: Kommunikation mit automaten (In German). Schriften des Rheinisch-Westfalischen Institut für Instrumentelle Mathematik an der Universität Bonn, (2) (1962)Google Scholar
  170. Potter, W.D., Trueblood, R.P.: Traditional, semantic and hyper-semantic approaches to data modeling. IEEE Comput. 21(6), 53–63 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Quine, W.: Set Theory and Its Logic. Belknap, Cambridge, MA (1963)MATHGoogle Scholar
  172. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology- versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling language: a comparison. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20, 774–799 (2007)Google Scholar
  173. Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., Lehne, O.A.: Working with Objects. Manning/Prentice Hall, Greenwich (1995)Google Scholar
  174. Rosch, E.: Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1978)Google Scholar
  175. Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 75–91 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Rosenberg, D.: Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: A Practical Approach. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  177. Rubin, K.S., Goldberg, A.: Object behavior analysis. Commun. ACM 35(9), 48–62 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  179. Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M. (eds.): ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management, pp. 301–304. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  180. Schonenberg, H.B., Weber, B., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting flexible processes through recommendations based on history. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  181. Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  182. Searle, J.R.: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  184. Seltveit, A.H.: An abstraction-based rule approach to large-scale information systems development. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993, pp. 328–351. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  185. Senge, P.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Century Business Publishers, London (1990)Google Scholar
  186. Shlaer, S., Mellor, S.J.: Object Lifecycles, Modeling the World in States. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  187. Shoham, Y.: Agent oriented programming: an overview of the framework and summary of recent research. In: Masuch, M., Polos, L. (eds.) Knowledge Representation and Reasoning under Uncertainty: Logic at Work, pp. 123–129. Springer, Berlin (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Simon, H.A.: The organization of complex systems. In: Pattee, H.H. (ed.) Hierarchy Theory. Braziller, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  189. Sindre, G.: HICONS: A general diagrammatic framework for hierarchical modelling. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1990. NTH report 1990:44, IDT report 1990:31 (1990)Google Scholar
  190. Singh, B., Rein, G.L.: Role Interaction Nets (RINs); a process description formalism. Technical Report CT-083-92, MCC, Austin (1992)Google Scholar
  191. Slonim, J.: OO in the real world – success or latest fashion? In: Műller, H.A., Georges, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’94), pp. 440–441, 19–23 Sept 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  192. Smith, W.: Concepts and thoughts. In: Sternberg, R., Smith, E. (eds.) The Psychology of Human Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York (1988)Google Scholar
  193. Sølvberg, A., Kung, C.H.: Information Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Sowa, J.: Conceptual Structures. Addison Wesley, Reading (1983)Google Scholar
  195. Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 31(3), 590–616 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Staab, S., Studer, R.: Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  197. Stamper, R.: Semantics. In: Boland Jr., T.J., Hirschheim, R.A. (eds.) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, pp. 43–78. Wiley, Englewood Cliffs (1987)Google Scholar
  198. Störle, H.: Describing process patterns with UML. In: EWSPT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2077. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (2001)Google Scholar
  199. Suchman, L.: Do categories have politics? Comput. Support. Cooper. Work 2(3), 177–190 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Sure, Y.: Leveraging corporate skill knowledge – from ProPer to OntoProper. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management, Basel, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar
  201. Sutcliffe, A.G., Maiden, N.A.M.: Bridging the requirements gap: policies, goals and domains. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-7), pp. 52–55, Redondo Beach, 6–7 Dec 1993Google Scholar
  202. Swenson, K.D., Maxwell, R.J., Matsymoto, T., Saghari, B., Irwin, I.: A business process environment supporting collaborative planning. J. Collab. Comput. 1(1), 15–34 (1994)Google Scholar
  203. Taivalsaari, A.: On the notion of inheritance. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(3), 438–479 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Tempora: Integrating database technology, rule-based systems and temporal reasoning for effective software. Technical report ESPRIT project 2469, Technical Annex, Tempora Consortium, 17 Oct (1988)Google Scholar
  205. ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and Its Support Environment. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  206. Tomlinson, C., Scheevel, M.: Concurrent programming. In: Kim, W., Lochovsky, F.H. (eds.) Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases and Applications. Addison-Wesley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  207. Tu, C.: Ontological evaluation of BMM and i* with the UEML approach. Master thesis, University of Namur (2007)Google Scholar
  208. Tuan, Y.-F.: Place: an experiential perspective. Geogr. Rev. 65(2), 151–165 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Twining, W., Miers, D.: How to Do Things with Rules. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London (1982)Google Scholar
  210. UN/CEFACT: Modeling Methodology (UMM) User Guide (2007), Project report, available here
  211. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41, 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. Web Serv. Form. Method. 4814, 1–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester/Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  215. Wand, Y.: An ontological foundation for information systems design theory. In: Pernici, B., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Office Information Systems: The Design Process, May 1989; Proceedings of IFIP WG8.4 Working Conference on “Office Information Systems: The Design Process”, Linz/Austria, August. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  216. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg, E., Lindgreen, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conferenceon Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, Namur/Belgium, Amsterdam/North-Holland, The Netherlands, Oct 1989, pp. 79–107 (1989)Google Scholar
  217. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inf. Syst. 3(4), 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the deep structure of information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 5(3), 203–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Ward, P.T.: The transformation schema: an extension of the dataflow diagram to represent control and timing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(2), 198–210 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Number 4 in Accounting Research Methodology Monograph series. Coopers & Lybrand, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  222. Weber, R., Zhang, Y.: An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inf. Syst. J. 6, 147–170 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Wegner, P., Goldin, D.: Interaction as a framework for modeling. In: Chen, P.P., Akoka, J., Kangassalo, H., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1565. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (1999)Google Scholar
  224. Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  225. WfMC: Workflow Handbook. Workflow Management Coalition, Future Strategies Inc, Lighthouse Point (2001)Google Scholar
  226. Wieringa, R.: Three roles of conceptual models in information systems design and use. In: Falkenberg, E., Lindgren, P. (eds.) Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, pp. 31–51. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1989)Google Scholar
  227. Wilkie, G.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering – The Professional Developers’s Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  228. Willars, H.: Handbok i ABC-metoden (In Swedish). Plandata Strategi, Stockholm, Sweden (1988)Google Scholar
  229. Wilson, R.J.: Introduction to Graph Theory, 3rd edn. Longman, New York (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  230. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  231. Wirfs-Brock, R., Wilkerson, B., Wiener, L.: Designing Object-Oriented Software. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  232. Yang, M.: COMIS – a conceptual model for information systems. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway (1993)Google Scholar
  233. Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. In: Nunamaker, J.F., Sprague, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICCS’27), pp. 234–243, Maui, Hawaii, January 4-7 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  234. zur Muehlen, M., Becker, J.: Workflow management and object-orientation – a matter of perspectives or why perspectives matter. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Object-Oriented Workflow Management, Denver (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science & TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations