Business Ontologies

  • Peter Rittgen


The business domain has many facets and there is no single approach that can claim general validity in the whole domain. Instead a number of approaches that are rooted in different fields of research, e.g. agent systems, language action, socio-instrumental action etc., compete for an appropriate conceptualization We give an overview of them and provide some deeper insight into two of them, socio-instrumental pragmatism and enterprise ontology.


Domain-level ontologies Application-level ontologies Socio-instrumental pragmatism Enterprise ontology Concept Meta-model 


  1. Anderson, P. 1999. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science 10(3):216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bertolazzi, P., C. Krusich, M. Missikoff. 2001. An approach to the definition of a core enterprise ontology: CEO. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Open Enterprise Solutions: Systems, Experiences, and Organizations (OES-SEO 2001), Rome, 14–15 Sep 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Bugaite, D., and O. Vasilecas. 2005. Framework on application domain ontology transformation into set of business rules. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies – CompSysTech 2005.Google Scholar
  5. Bunge, M. 1977. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  6. Carmichael, D.J., J. Kay, and B. Kummerfeld. 2004. Personal ontologies for feature selection in intelligent environment visualisations. In Artificial intelligence in mobile systems 2004, eds. J. Baus, C. Kray, and R. Porzel, 44–51. Saarbrücken, Germany: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  7. Corbett, D. 2003. Comparing and merging ontologies: A concept type hierarchy approach. In Foundations of intelligent systems, eds. N. Zhong, Z.W. Ras, S. Tsumoto, and E. Suzuki. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium, ISMIS 2003. Maebashi City, Japan, 28–31 Oct 2003, 75–82. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Davern, M. 1997. Social networks and economic sociology. A proposed research agenda for a more complete social science. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56(3):287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieng, R., and S. Hug. 1998. Comparison of <<personal ontologies>> represented through conceptual graphs. In ECAI 98. 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ed. H. Prade, 341–345. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Dietz, J.L.G. 2006. Enterprise ontology: Theory and methodology. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz, J.L.G., and N. Habing. 2004. A meta ontology for organizations. In On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004: OTM 2004 workshops, eds. R. Meersman, Z. Tari, A. Corsaro, P. Herrero, M. S. Pérez, M. Radenkovic, V. Robles, C. Santoro, A. Albani, K. Turowski, M. Jarrar, A. Gangemi, E. Duval, P. Spyns, and A. Palinginis, Proceedings of the OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters, GADA, JTRES, MIOS, WORM, WOSE, PhDS, and INTEROP 2004, Agia Napa, Cyprus, 25–29 Oct 2004, vol. 3292, 533–543. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domingue, J. 1998. Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, browsing, and editing on the web. In eds. B. Gaines, and M. Musen. Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, 18–23 Apr, Canada: Banff.Google Scholar
  13. Embley, D., B. Kurtz, and S. Woodfield. 1992. Object oriented system analysis: A model-driven approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Yourdon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Farquhar, A., R. Fikes, and J. Rice. 1997. The Ontolingua server: Tools for collaborative ontology construction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 46:707–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flood, R.L. 2005. Unleashing the “open system” metaphor. Systemic Practice and Action Research 1(3):313–318.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, M.S., and M. Gruninger. 1998. Enterprise modeling. AI Magazine 19(3):109–121.Google Scholar
  17. Gareth, M. 1997. Images of organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. 1986. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldkuhl, G. 2001. Communicative vs material actions: Instrumentality, sociality and comprehensibility. Paper presented at the 6th International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective (LAP2001), Montreal.Google Scholar
  20. Goldkuhl, G. 2002. Anchoring scientific abstractions – Ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism. Paper presented at the European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management (ECRM 2002), Reading, 29–30 Apr 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Goldkuhl, G. 2005. Socio-instrumental pragmatism: A theoretical synthesis for pragmatic conceptualisation in information systems. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS), University of Limerick.Google Scholar
  22. Goldkuhl, G., and P. Ågerfalk. 2000. Actability: A way to understand information systems pragmatics. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Organisational Semiotics, Stafford, 4 July 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Goldkuhl, G., and P. Ågerfalk. 2005. IT artefacts as socio-pragmatic instruments: Reconciling the pragmatic, semiotic, and technical. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 1(3):29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldkuhl, G., and M. Lind. 2004. Developing e-interactions – A framework for business capabilities and exchanges. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku, Finland, 14–16 June 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Goldkuhl, G., A. Röstlinger, and E. Braf. 2001. Organisations as practice systems – integrating knowledge, signs, artefacts and action. Paper presented at the Organisational Semiotics, IFIP 8.1 Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
  26. Gordijn, J. 2004. E-business value modelling using the e3-value ontology. In Value creation form e-business models, ed. W.L. Curry, 98–127, Chapter 5. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontology and information systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), 3–15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  28. Guizzardi, G., G. Wagner, N. Guarino, and M.V. Sinderen. 2004. An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2004, vol. 3084, 112–126, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Haase, P., A. Hotho, L. Schmidt-Thieme, and Y. Sure. 2005. Collaborative and usage-driven evolution of personal ontologies. In eds. A. Gómez-Pérez, and J. Euzenat. Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference, Heraklion, Greece, 2005 Vol. 3532, 486–499, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action 1 – reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Halpin, T.A. 2001. Information modeling and relational databases. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  32. Heflin, J., and J. Hendler. 2000. Dynamic ontologies on the web. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), 443–449, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Huhns, M.N., and L.M. Stephens. 1999. Personal ontologies. IEEE Internet Computing 3(5):85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3:305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendall, J.E., and K.E. Kendall. 1993. Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine. MIS Quarterly 17(2):149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein, B., R. Crawford, and A. Alchian. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics 21:297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systemic Practice and Action Research 5(4):379–393.Google Scholar
  38. Luhmann, N. 1990. The autopoiesis of social systems. In Essays on self-reference, ed. N. Luhmann, 1–21. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. OMG. 2005. Unified modeling language: Superstructure. Version 2.0, August 2005, Needham, MA: OMG. Retrieved, June 20 2006, from Scholar
  40. OMG. 2006. Unified modeling language: Infrastructure. Version 2.0, March 2006, Needham, MA: OMG. Retrieved, June 20 2006, from Scholar
  41. Osterwalder, A. 2004. The business model ontology – a proposition in a design science approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC: 173.Google Scholar
  42. Rose, J., and M. Jones. 2004. The double dance of agency: A socio-theoretic account of how machines and humans interact. Paper presented at the ALOIS Workshop: Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems, Linköping.Google Scholar
  43. Ross, S. 1973. The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review 63(2):134–139.Google Scholar
  44. Scott, A. 1997. Modernity’s machine metaphor. The British Journal Of Sociology 48(4):561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Searle, J.R. 1997. Speech acts – An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Searle, J.R. 1999. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  48. Uschold, M., M. King, S. Moralee, and Y. Zorgios. 1998. The enterprise ontology. Knowledge Engineering Review 13(1):31–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verharen, E. 1997. A language-action perspective on the design of cooperative information agents. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.Google Scholar
  50. Walsham, G. 1997. Actor-network theory: Current status and future prospects. In Information systems and qualitative research, eds. A.S. Lee, J.Liebenau, and J.I. Degross. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Williamson, O.E. 1981. The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature 19:1537–1568.Google Scholar
  52. Williamson, O.E. 1983. Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Williamson, O.E. 1998. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wittgenstein, L. 2001. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vlerick Leuven Gent Management SchoolLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.University of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations