Candidate interoperability standards: An ontological overlap analysis

Data and Knowledge Engineering

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 274-291

  Green, Peter ^a   Rosemann, Michael ^b   Indulska, Marta ^a   Manning, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

BPEL; BPML; BWWW model; ebXML; Enterprise interoperability standards; Ontological analysis; Ontology; WSCI

Indexed keywords

INTEROPERABILITY; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; PROCESS CONTROL; STANDARDS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; WEB SERVICES;

BWWW MODEL; EBXML; ENTERPRISE INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS; ONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS;

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 34247576141     PISSN: 0169023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2006.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. W.M.P.v.d. Aalst, Don't go with the flow: Web services composition standards exposed, in: IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2003.
2. Aalst W.M.P.v.d., et al. Pattern Based Analysis of BPML (and WSCI) (2002), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbene
3. W.M.P.v.d. Aalst et al., Workflow Patterns, Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology, 2002.
4. Bansler J.P., and Bodker K. A reappraisal of structured analysis: design in an organizational context. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 11 2 (1993) 165-193
5. BEA Systems, et al., Business Process Execution Language for Web Services v1.1. v1.1 ed., 2003.
6. Bodart F., et al. Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research 12 4 (2001) 384-405
7. BPMI.org, Business Process Modeling Language, 2002.
8. Bunge M. Treatise on basic philosophy. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World vol. 3 (1977), Reidel, Boston
9. A. Burton-Jones, P. Meso, How good are these UML diagrams? An empirical test of the Wand and Weber good decomposition model, in: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, 2002, Barcelona.
10. I. Davies et al., Using meta models for the comparison of ontologies, in: Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design Workshop, 2003, Klagenfurt.
11. I. Davies, P. Green, M. Rosemann, Facilitating an ontological foundation of information systems with meta models, in: 13th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2002, Melbourne.
12. Evermann J., and Wand Y. Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2001) (2001), Springer, Yokohama
13. J. Evermann, Y. Wand, Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modelling: Fundamental Concepts. Requirements Engineering, published online 13 January 2005.
14. P. Fettke, P. Loos, Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber-Model, in: 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2003. Tampa.
15. Gorla N., Pu H.-C., and Rom W.O. Evaluation of process tools in systems analysis. Information and Software Technology 37 2 (1995) 119-126
16. P.F. Green, Use of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in combination in upper CASE tools - an ontological evaluation, in: 2nd CaiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Barcelona, 1997.
17. Green P.F., and Rosemann M. Integrated process modelling: an ontological evaluation. Information Systems 25 2 (2000) 73-87
18. P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, Perceived ontological weaknesses of process modeling techniques: further evidence, in: 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Poland, 2002.
19. P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, Usefulness of the BWW ontological models as a "Core" theory of information systems, in: Information Systems Foundations: Building the Theoretical Base, Canberra, 2002.
20. Gruninger M., and Lee J. Ontology: applications and design. Communications of the ACM 45 2 (2002) 39-41
21. Guarino N., and Welty C. Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45 2 (2002) 61-65
22. Holsapple C.W., and Joshi K.D. A collaborative approach to ontology design. Communications of the ACM 45 2 (2002) 42-47
23. Karam G.M., and Casselman R.S. A cataloging framework for software development methods. IEEE Computer February (1993) 34-46
24. Kim H.M. Predicting how the Semantic Web will evolve. Communications of the ACM 45 2 (2002) 48-54
25. Kreger H. Fulfilling the Web-Services promise. Communications of the ACM 6 46 (2003) 29-34
26. Olle T.W., et al. Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding (1991), Addison-Wesley, Wokingham
27. Opdahl A.L., and Henderson-Sellers B. Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. Journal of Systems and Software 57 2 (2001) 119-143
28. Opdahl A.L., and Henderson-Sellers B. Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. Software and Systems Modeling Journal 1 1 (2002) 43-67
29. Parsons J., and Wand W. Using objects in systems analysis. Communications of the ACM 40 12 (1997) 104-110
30. Recker J., et al. Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN. 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (2005), Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Sydney, Australia
31. Rosemann M., and Green P. Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Information Systems 27 2 (2002) 75-91
32. Rosemann M., Green P., and Indulska M. A reference methodology for conducting ontological analyses. In: Lu H., et al. (Ed). Conceptual Modeling - ER 2004 (2004), Springer, Shanghai, China 110-121
33. Rosemann M., Green P., and Indulska M. Towards an enhanced methodology for ontological analyses. 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (2004), Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Riga
34. M. Rosemann, P.F. Green, Integrating multi-perspectives into ontologies, in: 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, 2000.
35. M. Rosemann et al., A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars, in: E. Dubois, K. Pohl (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering - CAiSE 2006, Springer, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, pp. 447-461.
36. G. Shanks et al., Representing part-whole relationships in conceptual modelling: an empirical evaluation, in: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, 2002.
37. R. Shapiro, A comparison of XPDL, BPML, and BPEL4WS, 2002.
38. S.K. Sia, C. Soh, Severity assessment of ERP-organization misalignment: honing in on ontological structure and context specificity, in: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, 2002.
39. Soffer P., et al. Modelling off-the-shelf information system requirements. An ontological approach. Requirements Engineering 6 3 (2001) 183-199
40. UN/CEFACT and OASIS, ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, 2001.
41. W3C, Web Service Choreography Interface, 2002.
42. Wand Y., Storey V.C., and Weber R. An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modelling. ACM Journal 24 4 (1999) 494-528
43. Wand Y., and Weber R. A model of control and audit procedure change in evolving data processing systems. The Accounting Review LXIV 1 (1989) 87-107
44. Wand Y., and Weber R. An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg E.D., and Lindgreen P. (Eds). Information System Concepts: An In-depth Analysis (1989), North-Holland 79-107
45. Wand Y., and Weber R. Mario Bunge's ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts. In: Weingartner P., and Dorn G.J.W. (Eds). Studies on Mario Bunge's Treatise (1990), Rodopi, Atlanta 123-149
46. Wand Y., and Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16 11 (1990) 1281-1291
47. Wand Y., and Weber R. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3 4 (1993) 217-237
48. Wand Y., and Weber R. On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5 (1995) 203-223
49. Weber R. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems (1997), Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia
50. Weber R., and Zhang Y. An analytical evaluation of NIAM's grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Information Systems Journal 6 2 (1996) 147-170
51. Wohed P., et al. Pattern Based Analysis of BPEL4WS (2002), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane