Toward a Perdurantist Ontology of Contracts

  • Sergio de Cesare
  • Guido L. Geerts
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 112)


Contracts are fundamental toward characterising the very nature of a firm (or enterprise). The firm is considered by some economic theories as a bundle of contracts and contracts in turn are considered also as bundles of rights and obligations (commitments). As such it can be argued that the ontological relationships between the firm and its contracts can be explained through a set of mereological (or whole-part) relationships. Specifically, the relationships between a contract and its parties and between the parties and their rights/commitments are all mereological. This view of what contracts are may appear at first surprising but a perdurantist interpretation of contracts results in such an ontology. The main contribution of this paper is a perdurantist ontology of contracts which introduces the following distinctive features: (1) a differentiation between contract specification and contract execution, (2) contract executions as objects whose spatio-temporal extents intersect those of its parties and (3) a generic model of contractual commitments and fulfilment events impacting the economics of the enterprise. The ontology proposed in this paper is applied to an example scenario to demonstrate its benefits in enterprise modelling.


Enterprise Modelling Contracts Ontology Perdurantism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Williamson, O.E.: Transaction Cost Economics: How it Works; Where it is Headed. De Economist 146(1), 23–58 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reve, T.: The firm as a nexus of internal and external contracts. In: Foss, N.J. (ed.) The Theory of the Firm: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, pp. 310–334. Routledge, London (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayotte, K., Hansmann, H.: Economic and Legal Entities as Transferable Bundles of Contracts. Working paper (2010), (last accessed December 01, 2011)
  4. 4.
    Ijiri, Y.: Theory of Accounting Measurement. Studies in Accounting Research #10. American Accounting Association, Sarasota, Florida (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCarthy, W.E.: The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment. The Accounting Review 57(3), 554–578 (1982)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geerts, G.L., McCarthy, W.E.: An ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 3, 1–16 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geerts, G.L., McCarthy, W.E.: Policy-Level Specifications in REA Enterprise Information Systems. Journal of Information Systems 20(2), 37–63 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hruby, P., Kiehn, J., Scheller, C.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lévine, P., Pomerol, J.C.: From Business Modeling Based on the Semantics of Contracts to Knowledge Modeling and Management. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowe, E.J.: Ontology. In: Honderich, T. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, p. 634. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, B.: Beyond Concepts: Ontology as Reality Representation. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sider, T.: Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use. Butterworth-Heinemann (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IDEAS Group: The IDEAS Model,
  17. 17.
    Kabilan, V.: Using Multi-tier Contract Ontology to Model Contract Workflow Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Stockholm University, Sweden (2003),
  18. 18.
    Kripke, S.: Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis, D.: On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell (1986)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daskalopulu, A., Sergot, M.: The Representation of Legal Contracts. AI and Society 11(1/2), 6–17 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chopra, A.K., Oren, N., Modgil, S., Desai, N., Miles, S., Luck, M., Singh, M.P.: Analyzing Contract Robustness through a Model of Commitments. In: Weyns, D., Gleizes, M.-P. (eds.) AOSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6788, pp. 17–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrario, R., Janiesch, C., Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Probst, F.: Towards an Ontological Foundation of Services Science. The General Service Model. In: The Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, Switzerland (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferrario, R., Guarino, N., Fernandez Barrera, M.E.: Towards an Ontological Foundations for Services Science: the Legal Perspective. In: Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernandez Barrera, M. (eds.) Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 1, pp. 235–258. Springer (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio de Cesare
    • 1
  • Guido L. Geerts
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingBrunel UniversityUxbridgeU.K.
  2. 2.Department of Accounting and MIS, Alfred Lerner College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of DelawareNewarkU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations