Advertisement

Visual Language and Ontology Based Analysis: Using OWL for Relation Discovery and Query in 4EM

  • Birger LantowEmail author
  • Kurt Sandkuhl
  • Michael Fellmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 263)

Abstract

Usually, enterprise models consider different aspects and include different abstraction levels of enterprises. It is hence challenging to integrate these models and to maintain their consistency. In the light of these challenges, ontologies seem to be relevant to complement enterprise models since they are intended to support communication, computational inference, consistency checking, querying, and the organization of knowledge. In our contribution, we demonstrate that Enterprise modelling can benefit from these characteristics. In order to check feasibility and pertinence of ontology-based Enterprise Models, we selected the goal modelling part and its relations to actors and resources from the “For Enterprise Modelling” (4EM) method. In more detail, this paper provides (1) a formal OWL representation of the 4EM Goals meta-model; (2) a discussion of goal relations regarding transitivity and domain specific inference; (3) a formalization of the discussed inference rules; and (4) an analysis of an exemplary goals model instance. This paper extends earlier work on the topic by the introduction of inter-model relations, a discussion of formalization alternatives, and a comparison of query results with and without ontology-based reasoning.

Keywords

4EM OWL Enterprise architecture Enterprise modelling Goal modelling SWRL SPARQL Enterprise model analysis Meta-Modelling 

References

  1. 1.
    Antunes, G., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J., Caetano, A.: Using ontologies for enterprise architecture integration and analysis. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q. 1, 1–23 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antunes, G., Caetano, A., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J.: Using ontologies for enterprise architecture model alignment. In: Proceedings of BITA 2013, Poznan, Poland (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakhshandeh, M., Antunes, G., Mayer, R., Borbinha, J., Caetano, A.: A modular ontology for the enterprise architecture domain. In: 17th IEEE International Proceedings of EDOCW 2013, pp. 5–12, 9–13 September 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bürger, T., Simperl, E.: Measuring the benefits of ontologies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5333, pp. 584–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R., Benjamins, V.R.: What are ontologies and why do we need them? IEEE Intell. Syst. 14(1), 20–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietz, J.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    EU-FP7 funded IP NeON: http://www.neon-project.org
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology design patterns. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 221–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). 2nd edn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaczmarek, T., Seigerroth, U., Shilov, N.: Multi-layered enterprise modeling and its challenges in business and IT alignment. In: Proceedings of ICEIS 2012, Wroclaw, Poland, pp. 257–260 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kavakli, V., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal-driven business process analysis application in electricity deregulation. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 187–207 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lantow, B., Sandkuhl, K.: From visual language to ontology representation: using owl for transitivity analysis in 4EM. In: Proceedings of Short and Doctoral Consortium Papers, PoEM 2015, Valencia, Spain, pp. 51–60 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandkuhl, K., Smirnov, A., Shilov, N., Koç, H.: Ontology-driven enterprise modelling in practice: experiences from industrial cases. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 209–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19243-7_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). ISBN 978-3662437247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sengupta, K., Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P.: Local closed world semantics: grounded circumscription for OWL. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 617–632. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25073-6_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise Modelling and Integration. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology. knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(01), 31–89 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fellmann, M., Thomas, O., Dollmann, T.: Management of model relations using semantic wikis. In: Proceedings of the 43rd HICSS Conference, Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birger Lantow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kurt Sandkuhl
    • 1
  • Michael Fellmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Business Information SystemsUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations