Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 4/2022

15.09.2021 | Special Section Paper

Automated conceptual model clustering: a relator-centric approach

verfasst von: Giancarlo Guizzardi, Tiago Prince Sales, João Paulo A. Almeida, Geert Poels

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of reference conceptual models to capture information about complex and sensitive business domains (e.g., finance, healthcare, space). These models play a fundamental role in different types of critical semantic interoperability tasks. Therefore, domain experts must be able to understand and reason with their content. In other words, these models need to be cognitively tractable. This paper contributes to this goal by proposing a model clustering technique that leverages on the rich semantics of ontology-driven conceptual models (ODCM). In particular, we propose a formal notion of Relational Context to guide the automated clusterization (or modular breakdown) of conceptual models. Such Relational Contexts capture all the information needed for understanding entities “qua players of roles” in the scope of an objectified (reified) relationship (relator). The paper also presents computational support for automating the identification of Relational Contexts and this modular breakdown procedure. Finally, we report the results of an empirical study assessing the cognitive effectiveness of this approach.
Vorheriger Artikel On Enterprise-Grade Tool Support for DEMO
Nächster Artikel Holistic data-driven requirements elicitation in the big data era

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
There is a long debate in philosophy regarding the ontological neutrality (or lack thereof) of formal languages. We simply mean here that they commit to a simple ontology of formal structures (e.g., that of set theory) in which sorts of types and relations are undifferentiated.
 
2
We will refer to this model (henceforth termed the MGIC model [44]) in a few passages of this article. The MGIC model was developed by practitioners in the context of a Brazilian governmental project and for the domain of Ground Transportation Regulation. The model consists of 3,800 classes, 61 datatypes, 1,918 associations, 3,616 subtyping relations, 698 generalization sets, 865 attributes, i.e., navigable association ends.
 
5
In the model of Fig. 1, we use a color scheme in which object kinds are represented in red; other object types classifying instances of those kinds are represented in a lighter tone of that red; relators are represented in green.
 
6
The model in Fig. 1 is a simplified model for this domain. A more detailed model could include cases of “relators mediating relators” (e.g., a car rental mediating a car ownership and an employment). The example avoids these to avoid deviating from the main focus of the discussion. Our formal definition of RCC (see Sect. 4.7), however, has no such a limitation, thus, addressing these cases that result in nested contexts (i.e., contexts including other contexts).
 
7
ontouml-js is distributed via NPM (https://​www.​npmjs.​com/​package/​ontouml-js) and its source code is available at https://​purl.​org/​krdb-core/​ontouml-js.
 
10
Visual Paradigm is a multi-platform desktop CASE tool that supports, among others, UML modeling, and whose functionalities can be extended via plugins written in Java. For more information, please refer to https://​www.​visual-paradigm.​com/​.
 
12
See https://​purl.​org/​krdb-core/​ontouml-schema, an application-neutral reference format for serializing and exchanging OntoUML models and diagrams.
 
13
The ontological rules behind OntoUML yields models in which all domain relations are reified as relators [22].
 
14
As discussed in [23, 29], relators and events form a duality that is often manifest in terms of systematic polysemy in language (e.g., “marriage as a relator bundling mutual rights and obligations of the spouses” versus “marriage as a process aggregating the actions of the spouses qua players of these roles”; “service as a contractual agreement” versus “service as a service delivery event”).
 
15
Association classes were introduced in UML to address one of the functions of relators (namely, association reification) but with a poorer semantics [31]. It is natural that UML users interpret relators as association classes and, in doing so, resist to what they interpret as “change in notation”.
 
16
For example, in the large MGIC model previously mentioned, the class stereotypes considered in Sect. 4.1 account for circa 90% of the cases, and the meta-relations of subtyping and mediation account for more than 85% of the represented relations.
 
17
This follows not only from the patterns that can be used to build a Relational Context but also, and more directly, from its very formal definition in Sect. 4.
 
Literatur
1.
Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I.: Entity-relationship and object-oriented model automatic clustering. Data Knowl. Eng. 20(2), 87–117 (1996)CrossRef
2.
Algergawy, A., Babalou, S., Klan, F., König-Ries, B.: Ontology modularization with OAPT. J. Data Semant. 9(2), 53–83 (2020)CrossRef
3.
Allen, G.N., March, S.T.: The effects of state-based and event-based data representation on user performance in query formulation tasks. MIS Q. 30, 269–290 (2006)CrossRef
4.
Almeida, J.P.A., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G.: Events as entities in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: Laender, A.H.F., Pernici, B., Lim, E.P., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2019, pp. 469–483. Springer, Cham (2019)
5.
6.
Amato, F., De Santo, A., Moscato, V., Persia, F., Picariello, A., Poccia, S.R.: Partitioning of ontologies driven by a structure-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Semantic Computing (IEEE ICSC 2015), pp. 320–323. IEEE (2015)
7.
Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25(1), 25–29 (2000)CrossRef
8.
Baldoni, M., Boella, G., van der Torre, I.L.: Interaction between objects in powerJava. J. Object Technol. 6(2), 7–12 (2003)
9.
Bennett, M.: The financial industry business ontology: best practice for big data. J. Bank. Regul. 14(3), 255–268 (2013)CrossRef
10.
Biddle, B.J.: Recent developments in role theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 12(1), 67–92 (1986)CrossRef
11.
Bork, D., Garmendia, A., Wimmer, M.: Towards a multi-objective modularization approach for entity-relationship models. In: ER Forum, Demo and Posters 2020, pp. 45–58. CEUR-WS (2020)
12.
Castano, S., De Antonellis, V., Fugini, M.G., Pernici, B.: Conceptual schema analysis: techniques and applications. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 23(3), 286–333 (1998)CrossRef
13.
Chen, J., Alghamdi, G., Schmidt, R.A., Walther, D., Gao, Y.: Ontology extraction for large ontologies via modularity and forgetting. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, pp. 45–52 (2019)
14.
Detoni, A.A., Miranda, G.M., Renault, L.D., Falbo, R.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Barcellos, M.P.: Exploring the role of enterprise architecture models in the modularization of an ontology network: a case in the public security domain. In: 2017 IEEE 21st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 117–126. IEEE (2017)
15.
El Ghosh, M., Naja, H., Abdulrab, H., Khalil, M.: Application of ontology modularization for building a criminal domain ontology. In: AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems, pp. 394–409. Springer (2015)
16.
Feldman, P., Miller, D.: Entity model clustering: structuring a data model by abstraction. Comput. J. 29(4), 348–360 (1986)CrossRef
17.
Figueiredo, G., Duchardt, A., Hedblom, M.M., Guizzardi, G.: Breaking into pieces: an ontological approach to conceptual model complexity management. In: 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–10 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​rcis.​2018.​8406642
18.
19.
Francalanci, C., Pernici, B.: Abstraction levels for entity-relationship schemas. In: Proceedings of 13th ER, pp. 456–473. Springer (1994)
20.
Garcia, A.C., Tiveron, L., Justel, C.M., Cavalcanti, M.C.: Applying graph partitioning techniques to modularize large ontologies. In: Joint V Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and VII International Workshop on Metamodels, Ontologies and Semantic Technologies. ONTOBRAS-MOST 2012, vol. 938, pp. 72–83. CEUR-WS (2012)
21.
Gonçalves, B., Guizzardi, G., Pereira Filho, J.G.: Using an ECG reference ontology for semantic interoperability of ECG data. J. Biomed. Inform. 44(1), 126–136 (2011)CrossRef
22.
Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: “We need to discuss the relationship”: revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 279–294. Springer, Cham (2015)
23.
Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships and events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 237–249. Springer (2016)
24.
Guidoni, G.L., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Transformation of ontology-based conceptual models into relational schemas. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 315–330. Springer (2020)
25.
Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (2005)MATH
26.
Guizzardi, G.: Objects and events in context. In: 11th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT). Keynote Speech (2019)
27.
28.
Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C.M., Almeida, J.P.A., Sales, T.P., Benevides, A.B., Porello, D.: Types and taxonomic structures in conceptual modeling: a novel ontological theory and engineering support. Data Knowl. Eng. 134, 101,891 (2021)
29.
Guizzardi, G., Guarino, N., Almeida, J.P.A.: Ontological considerations about the representation of events and endurants in business models. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 20–36. Springer (2016)
30.
Guizzardi, G., Sales, T.P., Almeida, J.P.A., Poels, G.: Relational contexts and conceptual model clustering. In: IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 211–227. Springer (2020)
31.
Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: What’s in a relationship: an ontological analysis. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 83–97. Springer (2008)
32.
33.
Hitzler, P., Shimizu, C.: Modular ontologies as a bridge between human conceptualization and data. In: International Conference on Conceptual Structures, pp. 3–6. Springer (2018)
34.
Lankhorst, M., et al.: Viewpoints and visualisation. In: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis, pp. 171–214. Springer (2017)
35.
Lozano, J., Carbonera, J., Abel, M., Pimenta, M.: Ontology view extraction: an approach based on ontological meta-properties. In: 2014 IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 122–129 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ictai.​2014.​28
36.
Lozano, J., Carbonera, J.L., Abel, M.: A novel approach for extracting well-founded ontology views. In: Papini et al. (ed.) Joint Ontology Workshops 2015, vol. 1517. CEUR-WS (2015)
37.
Moody, D.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRef
38.
Moody, D.L., Flitman, A.: A methodology for clustering entity relationship models: a human information processing approach. In: Proceedings of 18th ER, pp. 114–130. Springer (1999)
39.
Moody, D.L., Flitman, A.R.: A decomposition method for entity relationship models: a systems theoretic approach. In: Altmann, G., Lamp, J., Love, P., Mandal, P., Smith, R., Warren, M. (eds.) International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. ICSTM2000, vol. 72 (2000)
40.
Olivé, A., Raventós, R.: Modeling events as entities in object-oriented conceptual modeling languages. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 243–262 (2006)CrossRef
41.
Özacar, T., Öztürk, Ö., Ünalır, M.O.: ANEMONE: an environment for modular ontology development. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(6), 504–526 (2011)CrossRef
42.
Pezoa, F., Reutter, J.L., Suarez, F., Ugarte, M., Vrgoč, D.: Foundations of JSON schema. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 263–273. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​2872427.​2883029
43.
Ruy, F.B., Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Reginato, C.C., Santos, V.A.: From reference ontologies to ontology patterns and back. Data Knowl. Eng. 109, 41–69 (2017)CrossRef
44.
Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G.: Ontological anti-patterns: empirically uncovered error-prone structures in ontology-driven conceptual models. Data Knowl. Eng. 99, 72–104 (2015)CrossRef
45.
Snoeck, M.: Enterprise Information Systems Engineering: The MERODE Approach. Springer, Berlin (2014)CrossRef
46.
Teixeira, M.: An ontology-based process for domain-specific visual language design. Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil/Ghent University, Belgium (2016)
47.
Tzitzikas, Y., Hainaut, J.L.: How to tame a very large ER diagram (using link analysis and force-directed drawing algorithms). In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2005, pp. 144–159. Springer, Berlin (2005)
48.
Tzitzikas, Y., Kotzinos, D., Theoharis, Y.: On ranking RDF schema elements (and its application in visualization). J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 13(12), 1854–1880 (2007)
49.
Verdonck, M., Gailly, F.: Insights on the use and application of ontology and conceptual modeling languages in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of 35th ER (2016)
50.
51.
Villegas Niño, A.: A filtering engine for large conceptual schemas. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2013)
52.
53.
Weber, B.: The impact of modularization on the understandability of declarative process models: a research model. In: Information Systems and Neuroscience, p. 133 (2020)
54.
Wieringa, R., de Jonge, W., Spruit, P.: Using dynamic classes and role classes to model object migration. Theory Pract. Object Syst. 1(1), 61–83 (1995)CrossRef
55.
56.
Xiao, G., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Lembo, D., Poggi, A., Rosati, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: Ontology-based data access: a survey. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pp. 5511–5519 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​24963/​ijcai.​2018/​777
57.
Zambon, E., Guizzardi, G.: Formal definition of a general ontology pattern language using a graph grammar. In: 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), IEEE pp. 1–10 (2017)
Metadaten
Titel
Automated conceptual model clustering: a relator-centric approach
verfasst von
Giancarlo Guizzardi
Tiago Prince Sales
João Paulo A. Almeida
Geert Poels
Publikationsdatum
15.09.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00919-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

Software and Systems Modeling 4/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Theme Section Paper

Consistency management in industrial continuous model-based development settings: a reality check

Theme Section Paper

Agile MERODE: a model-driven software engineering method for user-centric and value-based development

Regular Paper

Are models better read on paper or on screen? A comparative study

Regular Paper

Utilizing multi-level concepts for multi-phase modeling

Expert Voice

The uncertainty interaction problem in self-adaptive systems

Special Section Paper

Formalizing the four-layer metamodeling stack with MetaMorph: potential and benefits

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise