Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the business is an important step in information system (IS) development. Conceptual models are descriptions of the organizational context for which a system is developed, and are used to help understanding this context. However, conceptual modelling methods do not provide well-formalized ways to create domain descriptions. On the other hand, in the area of IS design and software modelling, languages exist (such as UML) that possess a high level of formality. Extending the use of these IS design languages to conceptual modelling, even though they have not been specifically intended for this, can lead to several advantages. In particular, it can enable the use of similar notation in several stages of system development. However, while object-oriented constructs such as “object” and “operation” have clear meaning in the context of software design, it is not clear what they might mean in terms of the application domain, and no rules or guidelines exist for using them to create useful descriptions of such domains. This paper suggests specific semantics for object-oriented constructs based on a mapping between ontologically derived concepts and object-oriented language constructs. The paper also proposes modelling rules to guide the construction of object-oriented conceptual models and to assure that such models describe only ontologically feasible application domain situations. While the results are applicable to object-oriented constructs in general, UML is used as an example. A case study to test the use of the proposed semantics and modelling rules is described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We provide meaning to a subset of object-oriented concepts; some concepts have only implementation meaning and do not reflect any phenomenon in the modelled domain.

  2. A return to philosophical ontology has been argued for e.g. by [10]: “The computer science use of the term ‘ontology’... is taken as nearly synonymous with knowledge engineering in AI, conceptual modeling in databases, and domain modeling in OO design. We believe it is important... to maintain that ‘ontology’ is not simply a new word for something computer scientists have been doing for 20–30 years; ontology is 100s, if not 1000s, of years old, and there are many lessons learned in those centuries that we may borrow from philosophy along with the terms”.

  3. In an information system, we may not know or care about all properties and instead use artificial identification attributes to represent the set of identifying properties.

  4. We are not interested in the physical manifestations, such as an order form. These are merely vehicles to carry the description of an order.

  5. Note that the notion of property precedence in Bunge’s ontology describes laws, not a generalization of properties.

  6. The name of the person can be considered a mutual property of that person and the remainder of the society. However, as this remainder is usually implicit, the name can be considered an intrinsic property of the person. The changing of a property from mutual to intrinsic is termed unarization [11].

  7. We also note that in Bunge’s ontology not having a certain a property is not considered a property; hence, a ‘null’ property has no ontological meaning.

  8. In ontology, an instance of a sub-class is an instance of all its super-classes. However, this is not the case in object-oriented languages; although, by virtue of inheritance and polymorphism it can behave as and substitute for an instance of this super-class.

  9. However, records of the interaction such as an application form are substantial things, but they are distinct from the interaction itself.

References

  1. Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and telos. In: Locoupoulos P, Zicari R (eds) Conceptual Modeling, Databases, and Cases. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  2. Booch G (1994) Object Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coleman D, Arnold P, Bodoff S, Dollin C, Gilchrist H (1994) Object-Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobson I (1992) Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, MA

    Google Scholar 

  5. OMG (2001) The Unified Modelling Language Specification. Version 1.4, The Object Management Group

  6. Kolp M, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J (2002) Information systems development through social strcutures. International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering SEKE, pp183–190

  7. Rozen S, Shasha D (1989) Using a relational system on Wall Street: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the ideal. Commun ACM 32(8):988–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roe P (2003) Distributed XML Objects. Joint modular languages conference JMLC, pp 63–68

  9. Cilia M, Haupt M, Mezini M, Buchmann A (2003) The convergence of AOP and active databases: Towards reactive middleware. International conference on generative programming and component engineering GPCE, pp 169–188

    Google Scholar 

  10. Angeles P (1981) Dictionary of Philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J Inf Syst 3:217–237

    Google Scholar 

  12. Noy NF, Hafner CD (1997) The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. AI Mag 18(3):53–74

    Google Scholar 

  13. Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods, and applications. Knowl Eng Rev 11:2

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guarino N, Welty C (2002) Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun ACM 45(2):61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bunge MA (1977) Ontology I: the furniture of the world, Vol. 3. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bunge MA (1979) Ontology II: a World of Systems, Vol. 4. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dussart A, Aubert BA, Patry M (2002) An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modeling formalisms, Working Paper, Ecole des Haute Etude Commerciales Montreal, QC

  18. Fettke P, Loos P (2003) Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Americas conference on information systems AMCIS, Tampa, FL

  19. Green P, Rosemann M (2000) Ontological analysis of integrated process modelling. Inf Syst 25:2

    Google Scholar 

  20. Opdahl A, Sindre G (1993) Concepts for real-world modelling, Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering CAiSE, pp 309–327

  21. Opdahl A, Henderson-Sellers B (1999) Evaluating and improving OO modelling languages using the BWW-model. Information Systems Foundation Workshop

  22. Opdahl A, Henderson-Sellers B, and Barbier F (1999) An Ontological evaluation of the OML metamodel. In: Falkenberg E, Lyytinen K (eds) Information system concepts: an integrated discipline emerging. IFIP/Kluwer

  23. Opdahl A, Henderson-Sellers B (2001) Grounding the OML meta-model in ontology. J Syst Softw 57(2):119–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Opdahl A, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Softw Syst Model 1(1):43–67

    Google Scholar 

  25. Parsons J, Wand Y (1997) Using objects for systems analysis. Commun ACM 40(12):104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wand Y (1989) A proposal for a formal model of objects. In: Kim W, Lochovsky F (eds) Object-oriented concepts, languages, applications and databases. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley, pp 537–559

  27. Wand Y, Weber R (1989) An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg E, Lindgreen P (eds) Information system concepts: an in-depth analysis. Elsevier science publishers, BV

  28. Wand Y, Storey V, Weber R (1999) An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans Database Syst 24(4):494–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Soffer P, Golany B, Dori D, Wand Y (2001) Modelling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Requirements Eng 6(3):183–199

    Google Scholar 

  30. Takagaki K, Wand Y (1991) An object-oriented information systems model. In: Proceedings of the IFIP working group 8.1 on the object oriented approach to information systems, Quebec City, pp 275–296

  31. Bodart F, Weber R (1996) Optional properties versus subtyping in conceptual modelling: A theory and empirical test. International conference on information systems ICIS, p 450

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bodart F, Sim M, Patel A, Weber R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 12:4

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cockroft S, Rowles S (2003) Ontological evaluation of health models: some early findings. In: 7th pacific asia conference on information systems PACIS, Adelaide, Australia

  34. Gemino A (1999) Empirical comparisons of systems analysis modeling techniques, PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

  35. Weber R, Zhang Y (1996) An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inf Syst J 6(2):147–170

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of Information Systems. Inf Syst J 5:203–223

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fowler M, Kendall S (2000) UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object-oriented modelling language. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parsons J, Wand Y (1991) The object paradigm - two for the price of one? Workshop on Information Technology and Systems WITS, pp 308–319

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand

    Joerg Evermann

  2. The Sauder School of Business, The University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Yair Wand

  3. MIS Department, School of Social Sciences, Haifa University, Haifa, 31905, Israel

    Yair Wand

Authors
  1. Joerg Evermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yair Wand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joerg Evermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evermann, J., Wand, Y. Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts. Requirements Eng 10, 146–160 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-004-0208-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-004-0208-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation