Thinking ontologically: Conceptual vs. design models in UML

Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 82-104

  Evermann, Jörg ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899245480     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-339-5.ch004     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Angeles, P. (1981). Dictionary of philosophy. New York: Harper Perennial.
2. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., & Navathe, S. (1986). A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computer Surveys, 18(4).
3. Bodart, F., Sim, M., Patel, A., & Weber, R. (2001). Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 384-405.
4. Bodart, F. & Weber, R. (1996). Optional properties versus subtyping in conceptual modeling: A theory and empirical test. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 16-18 December 1996, (p. 450).
5. Bunge, M. A. (1977). Ontology I: The furniture of the world: Volume 3: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
6. Bunge, M. A. (1979). Ontology II: A world of systems: Volume 4: Treatise on basic philosophy. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
7. Cockroft, S. & Rowles, S. (2003). Ontological evaluation of health models: Some early findings. Proceedings of the 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia, 10-13 July, (pp. 611-625).
8. Dussart, A., Aubert, B. A., & Patry, M. (2002). An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modeling formalisms. Working paper, Ecole des Haute Etudes Commercials, Montreal.
9. Evermann, J. (2003). Using design languages for conceptual modelling: The UML case. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada.
10. Evermann, J. & Wand, Y. (2001a). An ontological examination of object interaction in conceptual modeling. Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems WITS'01, New Orleans, December 15-16, 2001, (pp. 91-96).
11. Evermann, J. & Wand, Y. (2001b). Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. In H. Kunii, S. Jajodia, & A. Solvberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER2001, Yokohama, Japan, 27-30 November 2001, (pp. 354-367).
12. Gemino, A. (1999). Empirical comparisons of systems analysis modeling techniques. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada.
13. Gemino, A. & Wand, Y. (2001). Comparing object-oriented with structured analysis techniques in conceptual modeling. Draft manuscript.
14. Green, P. & Rosemann, M. (2000). Ontological analysis of integrated process modelling. Information Systems, 25(2), 73-87.
15. Gruninger, M. & Lee, J. (2002). Ontology applications and design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 39-41.
16. Guarino, N. & Welty, C. (2002). Evaluating ontological decisions with ontoclean. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 61-65.
17. Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2002). Modern systems analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18. Holsaple, C. W. & Joshi, K. (2002). A collaborative approach to ontology design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 42-47.
19. rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
20. Kung, C. & Solvberg, A. (1986). Activity modeling and behavior modeling. In T. Olle, H. Sol, & A. Verrijn-Stuart (Eds.), Information system design methodologies: Improving the practice. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley.
21. Miller, L. (2002). Instructor's resource manual for modern systems analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
22. Noy, N. F. & Hafner, C. D. (1997). The state of the art in ontology design: A survey and comparative review. AI Magazine, 18(3), 53-74.
23. Opdahl, A. & Henderson-Sellers, B. (1999). Evaluating and improving OO modelling languages using the BWW-model. Proceedings of the Information Systems Foundation Workshop 1999, (pp. 217-232). Retrieved from http://www.comp.mq.edu.au/isf99/Opdahl.htm.
24. Opdahl, A. & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software and Systems Modeling, 1(1), 43-67.
25. Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B., & Barbier, F. (1999). An ontological evaluation of the OML metamodel. In E. Falkenberg & K. Lyytinen (Eds.), Information system concepts: An integrated discipline emerging. Netherlands: IFIP/Kluwer.
26. Opdahl, A. L. & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2001). Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. The Journal of Systems and Software, 57(2), 119-143.
27. Parsons, J. & Wand, Y. (1991). The object paradigm - Two for the price of one? Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technology and Systems WITS 1991, (pp. 308-319).
28. Parsons, J. & Wand, Y. (1997). Using objects for systems analysis. Communications of the ACM, 40(12), 104-110.
29. Rahm, E. & Bernstein, P. A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal - The International Journal on Very Large Databases, 10(4), 334-350.
30. Smith, B. & Welty, C. (2001). Ontology: Towards a new synthesis. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems, FOIS'01, Qgunquit, Maine, 17-19 October (pp. 3-4).
31. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
32. Uschold, M. & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93-155.
33. Wand, Y. (1989). A proposal for a formal model of objects. In W. Kim & F. Lchovsky (Eds.), Object-oriented concepts, languages, applications and databases (pp. 537-559). Boston, MA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
34. Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R. (1999). An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4), 494-528.
35. Wand, Y. & Weber, R. (1989). An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In E. Falkenberg & P. Lingreen (Eds.), Information system concepts: An in-depth analysis. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
36. Wand, Y. & Weber, R. (1990). Mario Bunge's ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts. In P. Weingartner & G. Dorn (Eds.), Studies on Mario Bunge's Treatise. Atlanta: Rodopi.
37. Wand, Y. & Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems, 3, 217-237.
38. Wand, Y. & Woo, C. (1999). Ontology-based rules for object-oriented enterprise modelling. Working paper No. 99-MIS-001, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Canada.
39. Weber, R. & Zhang, Y. (1996). An analytical evaluation of NIAM's grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Information Systems Journal, 6(2), 147-170.