How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 21-38

  Guan, Jian ^a   Levitan, Alan S ^a   Kuhn Jr , John R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Domain ontology; Modeling; Ontology; REA; XBRL

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872307428     PISSN: 14670895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2012.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Adams N., Fraser J., Macintosh A., McKay Hubbard A. Towards an ontology for electronic transaction services. Intell Syst Account Finance Manag 2002, 11(3):173-181.
2. Al-Shahrour F., Díaz-Uriarte R., Dopazo J. FatiGO: a web tool for finding significant associations of Gene Ontology terms with groups of genes. Bioinformatics 2004, 20(4):578.
3. Alles M.G., Kogan A., Vasarhelyi M.A. Exploiting comparative advantage: a paradigm for value added research in accounting information systems. Int J Account Inf Syst 2008, 9(4):202-215.
4. Alter S. Architecture of sysperanto: a model-based ontology of the IS field. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2005, 15:1-40.
5. Ashburner M., Ball C.A., Blake J.A., Botstein D., Butler H., Cherry J.M., et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000, 25(1):25-29.
6. Baldwin A.A., Brown C.E., Trinkle B.S. XBRL: an impacts framework and research challenge. J Emerg Technol Account 2006, 3:97.
7. Belkaoui A. The interprofessional linguistic communication of accounting concepts: an experiment in sociolinguistics. J Account Res 1980, 18(2):362-374.
8. Bera P., Burton-Jones A., Wand Y. Guidelines for designing visual ontologies to support knowledge identification. Manag Inf Syst Q 2011, 35(4):883-908.
9. Bodart F., Patel A., Sim M., Weber R. Should the optional property construct be used in conceptual modeling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 2001, 12(4):384-405.
10. Boehm B.W. Software engineering economics 1981, Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.
11. Borch S.E., Stefansen C. Evaluating the REA enterprise ontology from an operational perspective. Paper presented at the proceedings of the CAiSE '04 workshops 2004.
12. Bovee M., Kogan A., Nelson K., Srivastava R.P., Vasarhelyi M.A. Financial reporting and auditing agent with net knowledge (FRAANK) and eXtensible business reporting language (XBRL). J Inf Syst 2005, 19(1):19-41.
13. Bunge M. The furniture of the world 1977, vol. 1. Reidel.
14. Burton-Jones A., Meso P. Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Inf Syst Res 2006, 17(1):38-60.
15. Burton-Jones A., Storey V.C., Sugumaran V., Ahluwalia P. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data Knowl Eng 2005, 55(1):84-102.
16. Burton-Jones A., Wand Y., Weber R. Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. J Assoc Inf Syst 2009, 10(6):495-532.
17. Busco C., Quattrone P., Riccaboni A. Management accounting: issues in interpreting its nature and change. Manag Account Res 2007, 18(2):125-149.
18. Chandrasekaran B., Josephson J.R., Benjamins V.R. What are ontologies, and why do we need them?. IEEE Intell Syst 1999, 14(1):20-26.
19. Chen P.P. The entity-relationship model-toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1976, 1(1):9-36.
20. Chou T., Vassar J., Lin B. Knowledge management via ontology development in accounting. Kybernetes 2008, 37(1).
21. Cong Y., Kogan A., Vasarhelyi M. Extraction of structure and content from the Edgar database: a template-based approach. J Emerg Technol Account 2007, 4:69-86.
22. Cuskee C., Korthaus A., Seedorf S., Tomczyk P. Towards formal ontologies for technology risk measurement in the banking industry. Working paper 2005, University of Mannheim.
23. David J.S., Gerard G.J., McCarthy W.E. Design science: building the future of AIS 2002, American Accounting Association.
24. Debreceny R., Gray G. The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. Int J Account Inf Syst 2001, 2(1):47-74.
25. Declerck T., Krieger H. Translating XBRL into description logic. An approach using protégé 2006, Sesame & OWL.
26. Dilla W., Janvrin D., Raschke R. Interactive data visualization: new directions for accounting information systems research. J Inf Syst 2010, 24(2):1-37.
27. Dillard J.F., Ruchala L., Yuthas K. Enterprise resource planning systems: a physical manifestation of administrative evil. Int J Account Inf Syst 2005, 6(2):107-127.
28. Dunn C., Grabski S. An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decis Sci 2000, 32(1):55-94.
29. Erdmann M., Studer R. How to structure and access XML documents with ontologies. Data Knowl Eng 2001, 36(3):317-335.
30. Evermann J., Fang J. Evaluating ontologies: towards a cognitive measure of quality. Inf Syst 2010, 35(4):391-403.
31. Evermann J., Wand Y. Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 2005, 31(1):21-37.
32. Fensel D. Ontologies: a silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce 2001, Springer, Berllin.
33. Firat A., Madnick S.E., Grosof B.N. Financial information integration in the presence of equational ontological conflicts 2002, MIT Sloan School of Management.
34. Fisher I.E. On the structure of financial accounting standards to support digital representation, storage, and retrieval. J Emerg Technol Account 2004, 1:23.
35. Fisher I.E. A prototype system for temporal reconstruction of financial accounting standards. Int J Account Inf Syst 2007, 8(3):139-164.
36. Fisher I.E., Garnsey M.R. The semantics of change as revealed through an examination of financial accounting standards amendments. J Emerg Technol Account 2006, 3:41.
37. Fonseca F. The double role of ontologies in information science research. Sci Technol 2007, 58(6):786-793.
38. Fonseca F., Martin J. Learning the differences between ontologies and conceptual schemas through ontology-driven information systems. J Assoc Inf Syst 2007, 8(2):129-142.
39. Fox M., Barbuceanu M., Gruninger M. An organisation ontology for enterprise modelling: preliminary concepts for linking structures and behaviour. Comput Ind 1994, 29:123-134.
40. Fox M., Gruninger M. Enterprise modeling. AI Mag 1998, 19(3):109-121.
41. Gailly F., Laurier W., Poels G. Positioning and formalizing the REA enterprise ontology. J Inf Syst 2008, 22(2):219-248.
42. Gailly F., Poels G. Towards ontology-driven information systems: redesign and formalization of the REA ontology. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2007, 4439:245-259.
43. Gangemi A., Guarino N., Masolo C., Oltramari A., Schneider L. Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2002, 166-181.
44. Geerts G.L., Wang H. The timeless way of building REA enterprise systems. J Emerg Technol Account 2007, 4:161-182.
45. Geerts G.L. Introduction to the REA 25th anniversary special section. J Inf Syst 2008, 22(2):215-217.
46. Geerts G.L., McCarthy W.E. An ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture. Int J Account Inf Syst 2002, 3:1-16.
47. Geerts G.L., McCarthy W.E. An ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture 2002, vol. 3:1-16.
48. Gemino A., Wand Y. A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir Eng 2004, 9(4):248-260.
49. Gemino A., Wand Y. Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl Eng 2005, 55(3):301-326.
50. Green P.F., Rosemann M., Indulska M. Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML 2005, vol. 17:713-725.
51. Gregor S. The nature of theory in information systems. Manag Inf Syst Q 2006, 30(3):611-642.
52. Gruber T.R. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 1993, 5(2):199-220.
53. Guarino N. Formal ontology in information systems 1998, IOS Press.
54. Guarino N., Welty C. A formal ontology of properties. Lect Notes Artif Int 2000, 1937:97-112.
55. Guizzardi G. Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models 2005, Universal Press, The Netherlands.
56. On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta)models 2007, IOS Press, Amsterdam. G. Guizzardi (Ed.).
57. Guizzardi G., Wagner G. A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modeling 2004.
58. Guizzardi G., Wagner G. Using the unified foundational ontology (UFO) as a foundation for general conceptual modeling languages. Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications 2010, 175-196.
59. Guizzardi G., Wagner G., Guarino N., Van Sinderen M. An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. Paper presented at the advanced information systems engineering, 16th international conference, CAiSE, Berlin 2004.
60. Guo Y., Qasem A., Pan Z., Heflin J. A requirements driven framework for benchmarking semantic web knowledge base systems. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2007, 19(2):297-309.
61. Hall D.J., Paradice D. Philosophical foundations for a learning-oriented knowledge management system for decision support. Decis Support Syst 2005, 39(3):445-461.
62. Hayes P. The second naive physics manifesto 1989.
63. Henderson-Sellers B. Bridging metamodels and ontologies in software engineering. J Syst Softw 2011, 84(2):301-313.
64. Hevner A.R., March S.T., Park J., Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 2004, 75-105.
65. Huang H. Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 compliance. Manag Audit J 2009, 24(6):584-598.
66. The supply and demand for continuous reporting 2003, PricewaterhouseCoopers. J. Hunton, A. Wright, S. Wright (Eds.).
67. IEEE Suggested upper merged ontology from. http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUMO/index.html.
68. Ijiri Y. The foundations of accounting measurement: a mathematical, economic, and behavioral inquiry 1967, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
69. Ijiri Y. Theory of accounting measurement 1975.
70. Irwin G., Turk D. An ontological analysis of use case modeling grammar. J Assoc Inf Syst 2005, 6(1):1-36.
71. Jurisica I., Mylopoulos J., Yu E. Ontologies for knowledge management: an information systems perspective. Knowl Inf Syst 2004, 6(4):380-401.
72. Keet C.M., Artale A. Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole relations. Appl Ontol 2008, 3(1):91-110.
73. Kelton A.S., Pennington R.R., Tuttle B.M. The effects of information presentation format on judgment and decision making: a review of the information systems research. J Inf Syst 2010, 24:79.
74. Kishore R., Sharman R., Ramesh R. Computational ontologies and information systems: I Foundations. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2004, 14:158-183.
75. Krishnan R., Peters J., Padman R., Kaplan D. On data reliability assessment in accounting information systems. Inf Syst Res 2005, 16(3):307-326.
76. Lampe J.C. Discussion of an ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture. Int J Account Inf Syst 2002, 3(1):17-34.
77. Lara R., Cantador I., Castells P. XBRL taxonomies and OWL ontologies for investment funds. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2006, 4231:271.
78. Lenat D. CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun ACM 1995, 38:11-33.
79. March S., Hevner A., Ram S. Research commentary: an agenda for information technology research in heterogeneous and distributed environments. Inf Syst Res 2000, 11(4):327-341.
80. Mason R.O., Mitroff I.I. A program for research on management information systems. Manag Sci 1973, 19(5):475-488.
81. Mattessich R. Accounting and analytical methods 1964, Richard D Irwin, Inc.
82. McCarthy J. Circumscription-a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artif Intell 1980, 13(1-2):27-39.
83. McCarthy W.E. The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Account Rev 1982, 57(3):554-578.
84. McCarthy W.E., Geerts G.L. The ontological foundation of REA enterprise information systems: working paper, Michigan state university, August 2000.
85. McKee T. Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates. J Forecast 2003, 22(8):569-586.
86. Mealy G.H. Another look at data. Paper presented at the proceedings of the fall joint computer conference, Anaheim, California 1967.
87. Milton S., Kazmierczak E. An ontology of data modelling languages: a study using a common-sense realistic ontology. J Database Manag 2004, 15(2):19-38.
88. Milton S., Kazmierczak E. Ontology as meta-theory: a perspective. Scand J Inf Syst 2006, 18(1):85-94.
89. Milton S., Kazmierczak E., Keen C. An ontological study of data modelling languages using Chisholm's ontology. Proceedings of the 11th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases. Maribor, Slovenia 2001, 21-32.
90. Moody D. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 2005, 55(3):243-276.
91. Nodine M., Fowler J., Ksiezyk T., Perry B., Taylor M., Unruh A. Active information gathering in InfoSleuth. Int J Coop Inf Syst 2000, 9:3-28.
92. Nodine M., Fowler J., Perry B. An overview of active information gathering in Infosleuth 1999.
93. O'Leary D.E. Knowledge management across the enterprise resource planning systems life cycle. Int J Account Inf Syst 2002, 3(2):99-110.
94. O'Leary D.E. Enterprise ontologies: review and an activity theory approach. Int J Account Inf Syst 2010, 11(4):336-352.
95. Oliver B. The semantic differential: a device for measuring the interprofessional communication of selected accounting concepts. J Account Res 1974, 12(2):299-316.
96. OMG OMG model driven architecture from. http://www.omg.org/mda/.
97. Parsons J., Cole L. An experimental examination of property precedence in conceptual modelling. 1st Asian-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling. Dunedin, New Zealand 2004, 101-110.
98. Parsons J., Wand Y. Using cognitive principles to guide classification in information systems modeling. Manag Inf Syst Q 2008, 32(4).
99. Peng G.C., Nunes M.B. Identification and assessment of risks associated with ERP post-implementation in China. J Enterp Inf Manag 2009, 22(5):587-614.
100. Pinsker R., Li S. Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: early evidence. Commun ACM 2008, 51(3):47-50.
101. Poels G., Maes A., Gailly F., Paemeleire R. The pragmatic quality of resources-events-agents diagrams: an experimental evaluation. Inf Syst J 2007, 1-27. (December).
102. Poels G., Maes A., Gailly F., Paemeleire R. The pragmatic quality of resources-events-agents diagrams: an experimental evaluation. Inf Syst J 2011, 21(1):63-89.
103. Poston R.S., Grabski S.V. Accounting information systems research: is it another QWERTY?. Int J Account Inf Syst 2000, 1(1):9-53.
104. Pulido J., Ruiz M., Herrera R., Cabello E., Legrand S., Elliman D. Ontology languages for the semantic web: a never completely updated review. Knowl-Based Syst 2006, 19(7):489-497.
105. Quattrone P. Constructivism and accounting research: towards a trans-disciplinary perspective. Account Audit Account J 2000, 13(2):130-155.
106. Quattrone P., Hopper T. A 'time-space odyssey': management control systems in two multinational organisations. Account Organ Soc 2005, 30(7-8):735-764.
107. Quattrone P., Hopper T. What is IT?: SAP, accounting, and visibility in a multinational organisation. Inf Organ 2006, 16(3):212-250.
108. Recker J., Rosemann M., Green P.F., Indulska M. Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter?. Manag Inf Syst Q 2011, 35(1):1-23.
109. Recker J., Rosemann M., Indulska M., Green P. Business process modeling-a comparative analysis. J Assoc Inf Syst 2009, 10(4):1.
110. Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 1973, 4(2):155-169.
111. Rodgers W., Hedelin L., Housel T., Kuhn J.R. Exploratory and exploitative knowledge learning by investment analysts. Working paper, University of California - Riverside 2008.
112. Schulz S., Kumar A., Bittner T. Biomedical ontologies: what part-of is and isn't. J Biomed Inform 2006, 39(3):350-361.
113. SEC SEC proposes new way for investors to get financial information on companies from. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-85.htm.
114. Sedbrook T., Newmark R.I. Automating REA policy level specifications with semantic web technologies. J Inf Syst 2008, 22:249.
115. Shanks G., Tansley E., Nuredini J., Tobin D., Weber R. Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation. Manag Inf Syst Q 2008, 32(3):553-573.
116. Sharman R., Kishore R., Ramesh R. Computational ontologies and information systems: II Formal specification. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2004, 14:184-205.
117. Sia S., Soh C. An assessment of package-organisation misalignment: institutional and ontological structures. Eur J Inf Syst 2007, 16(5):568-583.
118. Siau K. The psychology of information modeling. Advanced topics in database research 2003, 1:106-118.
119. Smith B. Ontology and information systems retrieved December 3, 2008 from. http://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/ontologies.htm.
120. Soffer P., Hadar I. Applying ontology-based rules to conceptual modeling: a reflection on modeling decision making. Eur J Inf Syst 2007, 16(5):599-611.
121. Sorter G.H. An 'events' approach to basic accounting theory. Account Rev 1969, 12-19. (January).
122. Spies M. An ontology modelling perspective on business reporting. Inf Syst 2010, 35:404-416.
123. Stecher J., Suijs J. Hail, Procrustes! 2008, Social Science Research Network.
124. Sutton S. Editor's comments: the role of (and need for) theory in AIS research. Int J Account Inf Syst 2004, 5(3):281-284.
125. Foundations and frameworks for AIS research 2002, American Accounting Association. S. Sutton, V. Arnold (Eds.).
126. Sutton S. A research discipline with no boundaries: reflections on 20years of defining AIS research. Int J Account Inf Syst 2010, 11:289-296.
127. Swanson Z., Freeze R. Generally accepted accounting principles: an ontological perspective. Working Paper 2008, University of Central Oklahoma.
128. Uschold M., King M., Moralee S., Zorgios Y. The enterprise ontology. Knowl Eng Rev 1998, 13(01):31-89.
129. Wand Y., Storey V.C., Weber R. An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling 1999, vol. 24:494-528. ACM Press New York, NY, USA.
130. Wand Y., Weber R. A model of control and audit procedure change in evolving data processing systems. Account Rev 1989, 87-107.
131. Wand Y., Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 1990, 16(11):1282-1292.
132. Wand Y., Weber R. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf Syst J 1993, 3(4):217-237.
133. Wand Y., Weber R. On the deep structure of information systems. J Inf Syst 1995, 5(3):203-223.
134. Wand Y., Weber R. Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling - a research agenda. Inf Syst Res 2002, 13(4):363-376.
135. Weber R. Research review paper conceptual modelling and ontology: possibilities and pitfalls. J Database Manag 2003, 14(3):1-20.
136. XML, XBRL, and the future of business and business reporting 2003, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. R. Weber (Ed.).
137. Wilkin C.L., Chenhall R.H. A review of IT governance: a taxonomy to inform accounting information systems. J Inf Syst 2010, 24:107.
138. Wussusek B. On ontological foundations of conceptual modelling. Scand J Inf Syst 2006, 18(1):63.
139. XBRL XBRL abstract model 2.0, 2012 from. http://xbrl.org/Specification/abstractmodel-primary/PWD-2012-06-06/abstractmodel-primary-pwd-2012-06-06.html.
140. XBRL. ORG What is XBRL? from. http://www.xbrl.org/WhatIsXBRL/.
141. XSB XBRL: towards a diverse ecosystem retrieved April 27, 2010 2010.
142. Zhu H., Madnick S. Semantic integration approach to efficient business data supply chain: integration approach to inter-operable XBRL 2008, SSRN.
143. Zúñiga G.L. Ontology: its transformation from philosophy to information systems. Paper presented at the FOIS '01 proceedings of the international conference on formal ontology in information systems 2001.
144. zur Muehlen M., Indulska M. Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inf Syst 2009.