Advertisement

Challenges of Identifying Communities with Shared Semantics in Enterprise Modeling

  • Dirk van der Linden
  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 134)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the use and challenges of identifying communities with shared semantics in Enterprise Modeling. People tend to understand modeling meta-concepts (i.e., a modeling language’s constructs or types) in a certain way and can be grouped by this understanding. Having an insight into the typical communities and their composition (e.g., what kind of people constitute a semantic community) would make it easier to predict how a conceptual modeler with a certain background will generally understand the meta-concepts he uses, which is useful for e.g., validating model semantics and improving the efficiency of the modeling process itself. We demonstrate the use of psychometric data from two studies involving experienced (enterprise) modeling practitioners and computing science students to find such communities, discuss the challenge that arises in finding common real-world factors shared between their members to identify them by and conclude that the common (often implicit) grouping properties such as similar background, focus and modeling language are not supported by empirical data.

Keywords

enterprise modeling conceptual understanding personal semantics community identification semantics clustering 

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Business process model and notation (bpmn) ftf beta 1 for version 2.0. Internet (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gordijn, J., Yu, E., van der Raadt, B.: e-service design using i* and e3value modeling. IEEE Software 23, 26–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrariolo, D., Cugini, J., Kuhn, R.: Role-based access control (rbac): Features and motivations. In: Proc. of the 11th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling–the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(4), 205–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuehn, H., Bayer, F., Junginger, S., Karagiannis, D.: Enterprise Model Integration. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2003. LNCS, vol. 2738, pp. 379–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26(1), 15–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Opdahl, A.L., Berio, G.: Interoperable language and model management using the UEML approach. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management, pp. 35–42. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sowa, J.: The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning. In: Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 231–263. Springer, Netherlands (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ayala, C.P., Cares, C., Carvallo, J.P., Grau, G., Haya, M., Salazar, G., Franch, X., Mayol, E., Quer, C.: A comparative analysis of i*-based agent-oriented modeling languages. In: SEKE 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 43–50 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breu, R., Hinkel, U., Hofmann, C., Klein, C., Paech, B., Rumpe, B., Thurner, V.: Towards a Formalization of the Unified Modeling Language. In: Aksit, M., Auletta, V. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 344–366. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Nuffel, D., Mulder, H., Van Kervel, S.: Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilke, C., Demuth, B.: UML is still inconsistent! How to improve OCL Constraints in the UML 2.3 Superstructure. Electronic Communications of the EASST 44 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: UML - the Good, the Bad or the Ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software and System Modeling 4(1), 4–13 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wenger, E., Snyder, W.: Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78(1), 139–146 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gumperz, J.: The speech community. In: Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, pp. 66–74. Wiley-Blackwell (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing language: conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Linden, D., Gaaloul, K., Molnar, W.: Initial Results from a Study on Personal Semantics of Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds.) NLDB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7337, pp. 360–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1957)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verhagen, T., Meents, S.: A framework for developing semantic differentials in is research: Assessing the meaning of electronic marketplace quality (emq). Serie Research Memoranda 0016, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Linden, D.J.T., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Lartseva, A., Proper, H.A(E.): Towards an Investigation of the Conceptual Landscape of Enterprise Architecture. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 526–535. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Linden, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lartseva, A., Molnar, W.: Beyond terminologies: Using psychometrics to validate shared ontologies. Accepted for Publication in Applied Ontology (February 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. Mis Quarterly 30(3), 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk van der Linden
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
    • 3
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.HAN University of Applied SciencesArnhemThe Netherlands
  4. 4.EE-TeamLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations