Advertisement

Ontology-Driven Business Modelling: Improving the Conceptual Representation of the REA Ontology

  • Frederik Gailly
  • Geert Poels
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4801)

Abstract

Business modelling research is increasingly interested in exploring how domain ontologies can be used as reference models for business models. The Resource Event Agent (REA) ontology is a primary candidate for ontology-driven modelling of business processes because the REA point of view on business reality is close to the conceptual modelling perspective on business models. In this paper Ontology Engineering principles are employed to reengineer REA in order to make it more suitable for ontology-driven business modelling. The new conceptual representation of REA that we propose uses a single representation formalism, includes a more complete domain axiomatizat-ion (containing definitions of concepts, concept relations and ontological axioms), and is proposed as a generic model that can be instantiated to create valid business models. The effects of these proposed improvements on REA-driven business modelling are demonstrated using a business modelling example.

Keywords

Business Modelling Conceptual Representation Ontology Base Reference Ontology Enterprise Information System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pateli, A.G., Giaglis, G.M.: A research framework for analysing eBusiness models. European Journal of Information Systems 13, 302–314 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox, M.S.: The TOVE Project: A Common-sense Model of The Enterprise. In: Belli, F., Radermacher, F. (eds.) Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, pp. 25–24. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ushold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The Enterprise Ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review: Special Issue on Putting Ontologies to Use 13, 31–89 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordijn, J.: Value based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geerts, G.L., McCarthy, W.E.: An Ontological Analysis of the Economic Primitives of the Extended-REA Enterprise Information Architecture. International Joural of Accounting Information Systems 3, 1–16 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology - a proposition in a design science approach. Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales. University of Lausanne, Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Edirisuriya, A., Ilayperuma, T., Johannesson, P., Grégoire, B., Schmitt, M., Dubois, E., Abels, S., Hahn, A., Gordijn, J., Weigand, H., Wangler, B.: Towards a Reference Ontology for Business Models. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guarino, N.: Understanding, building and using ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46, 293–310 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy, W.E.: The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in A Shared Data Environment. The Accounting Review, 554–578 (july 1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gailly, F., Poels, G.: Towards Ontology-driven Information Systems: Redesign and Formalization of the REA Ontology. In: Gailly, F., Poels, G. (eds.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    UN/CEFACT: UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) User Guide. (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ECIMF: E-Commerce Integration Meta-Framework. Final draft. ECIMF Project Group (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCarthy, W.E.: The REA Modelling Approach to Teaching Accounting Information Systems. Issues in Accounting Education 18, 427–441 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gailly, F., Poels, G.: Towards a Formal Representation of the Resource Event Agent Pattern International Conference on Enterprise Systems and Accounting (ICESAcc), Greece (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hruby, P.: Model-driven design using business patterns. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geerts, G., McCarthy, W.E.: The Ontological Foundation of REA Enterprise Information Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geerts, G., McCarthy, W.E.: Policy-Level Specification in REA Enterprise Information Systems. Journal of Information Systems Fall  (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Rojas, M.D.: Ontological Reengineering and Reuse. In: Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) 11th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, pp. 139–156. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kogut, P., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Dutra, M., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.K., Smith, J.: UML for ontology development. Knowledge Engineering Review 17, 61–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spaccapietra, S., Parent, C., Vangenot, C., Cullot, N.: On Using Conceptual Modeling for Ontologies. In: Bussler, C.J., Hong, S.-k., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Kinshuk, Krishnaswamy, S., Loke, S.W., Oberle, D., Richards, D., Sharma, A., Sure, Y., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Web Information Systems – WISE 2004 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3307, pp. 22–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spyns, P.: Object Role Modelling for ontology engineering in the DOGMA framework. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 710–719. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Information Systems 23, 127–155 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG: Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) - Sixth Revised Submission to OMG/ RFP ad/2003-03-40. Object management Group (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jarrar, M.: Towards Methodological Principles for Ontology Engineering. STARLAB. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Assmann, U., Zchaler, S., Wagner, G.: Ontologies, Meta-Models, and the Model-Driven Paradigm. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dunn, C.L., Cherrington, J.O., Hollander, A.S.: Enterprise Information Systems: A Pattern Based Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geerts, G., McCarthy, W.E.: An Accounting Object Infrastructure for Knowledge Based Enterprise Models. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 14, 89–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gailly, F., Laurier, W., Poels, G.: Positioning REA as a Business Domain Ontology. Resource Event Agent -25 (REA-25) Conference, Newark, Delaware, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ontology, O.M.G.: Definition Metamodel: OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/06-10-11). Object Management Group (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maes, A., Poels, G.: Evaluating Quality of Conceptual Models Based on User Perceptions. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederik Gailly
    • 1
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent UniversityBelgium

Personalised recommendations