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
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 1/2018

30.06.2016 | Theme Section Paper

Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling

verfasst von: Victorio A. Carvalho, João Paulo A. Almeida

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Multi-level conceptual modeling addresses the representation of subject domains dealing explicitly with multiple classification levels. Despite the recent advances in multi-level modeling techniques, we believe that the literature in multi-level conceptual modeling would benefit from a theory that: (1) formally characterizes the nature of classification levels and (2) precisely defines the structural relations that may occur between elements of different classification levels. This work aims to fill this gap by proposing an axiomatic theory that can be considered a reference top-level ontology for types in multi-level conceptual modeling. The theory provides the modeler with basic concepts and patterns to articulate domains that require multiple levels of classification as well as to inform the development of well-founded languages for multi-level conceptual modeling. The whole theory is founded on a basic instantiation relation and characterizes the concepts of individuals and types, with types organized in levels related by instantiation. Further, it includes intra-level structural relations that are used to define expressive multi-level models and cross-level relations that allow us to account for and incorporate the different notions of power type in the literature.
Vorheriger Artikel Formalization of the classification pattern: survey of classification modeling in information systems engineering
Nächster Artikel Dual deep modeling: multi-level modeling with dual potencies and its formalization in F-Logic

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
This discussion is extended in this paper in Sect. 4, where we show how the definitions are related to each other and how they can be given different uses.
 
2
We are aware that certain approaches such as RM-ODP distinguish the terms instantiation and instance, but this distinction is not required here, and hence, we use the terms interchangeably.
 
3
For the sake of clarity in the presentation, we focus in this section on types that apply necessarily to their instances (the so-called rigid types  [21]). A treatment of dynamic classification (and non-rigidity) is deferred to Sect. 6.2.
 
4
Note that in biology there is a long and involved debate on the ontological status of taxa such as species  [15]. One of the interpretations is that biological taxa (e.g., the “Homo sapiens” species, the “Canis Lupus Familiaris” species) represents a group of animals rather than a kind or type of animal. We stay clear of this debate and represent species (and other taxa) as the type that is instantiated by all members of that group (and only by them) (e.g., “Human” and “Dog”).
 
5
Datatypes such as String and Integer can be considered first-order types whose instances (e.g., the integer value “1” and the string “xyz”) are “abstract entities” (see  [21], p. 327).
 
6
A more comprehensive definition would acknowledge that differences in various regularity attributes simultaneously may cancel each other’s effects on the intension; thus, we could add a ceteris paribus clause to definition D12, which would then state that an attribute a is a regularity attribute iff different values for a with all other things equal would result in a different type.
 
7
For the sake of simplicity, we have assumed here that the classes are not abstract. The semantic mapping becomes even more involved in the presence of abstract classes.
 
8
The full specification of the theory in Alloy can be found in https://​github.​com/​jpalmeida/​mlt-ontology.
 
Literatur
1.
Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R.: Melanie: multi-level modeling and ontology engineering environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Master Class on Model-Driven Engineering Modeling Wizards—MW’12. New York, USA (2012)
2.
Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Meta-level independent modeling. In: International Workshop “Model Engineering” (in Conjunction with ECOOP’2000), Cannes, France (2000)
3.
Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRef
4.
Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Processes and products in a multi-level metamodeling architecture. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 11(6), 761–784 (2001)CrossRef
5.
Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(3), 345–359 (2008)CrossRef
6.
Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel modeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, pp. 19–33. Toronto, Canada (2001)
7.
Atkinson, C.: Metamodelling for distributed object environments. In: First International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC’97). Brisbane, Australia (1997)
8.
9.
Cardelli, L.: Structural subtyping and the notion of power type. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium of Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 70–79 (1988)
10.
Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A.: A semantic foundation for organizational structures: a multi-level approach. In: Proceedings of the Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC2015) (2015)
11.
Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Using reference domain ontologies to define the real-world semantics of domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings 26th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2014), pp. 488–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
12.
Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Fonseca, C.M., Guizzardi G.: Extending the foundations of ontology-based conceptual modeling with a multi-level theory. In: 35th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2015), pp. 119–133 (2015)
13.
Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Eriksson, O., Henderson-Sellers, B., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ontological and linguistic metamodeling revisited: a language use approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(12), 2099–2124 (2013)CrossRef
17.
Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRef
18.
Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun. ACM 45(2), 61–65 (2002)CrossRef
19.
Guarino, N.: The ontological level. In: Casati, R., Smith, B., White, G. (eds.) Philosophy and the Cognitive Science, pp. 443–456. Holder-Pivhler-Tempsky, Vienna (1994)
20.
Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: “We need to discuss the relationship”: revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Proceedings of the 27th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2015), pp. 488–502 (2015)
21.
Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. University of Twente, Enschede (2005)MATH
22.
Guizzardi, G. et al.: Towards an ontological analysis of powertypes. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Ontologies for Artificial Intelligence (FOFAI 2015), 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)
23.
Henderson-Sellers, B.: On the Mathematics of Modeling, Metamodelling, Ontologies and Modelling Languages. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefMATH
24.
Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)
25.
Kennel, B.: A Unified Framework for Multi-level Modeling. University of Mannheim, Mannheim (2012)
26.
Kühne, T.: Contrasting classification with generalisation. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Wellington, New Zealand (2009)
27.
Lara, J. de, Guerra, E.: Deep meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In: Proceedings of the 48th International Conference, TOOLS 2010. Málaga, Spain (2010)
28.
Lara, J. de, Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J. S.: When and how to use multilevel modelling. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24(2), 1–46, 23 (2014)
29.
Lara, J. et al.: Extending deep meta-modelling for practical model-driven engineering. Comput. J. 57(1):36–58 (2013)
30.
Jarke, M., Gallersdörfer, R., Jeusfeld, M.A., Staudt, M.: ConceptBase—a deductive object base for meta data management. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 167–192 (1995)CrossRef
31.
Mayr, E.: The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1982)
32.
Montague, R.: Formal philosophy: selected papers of Richard Montague. In: Thomasson, R. (eds.) Paperback, p.370. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)
33.
Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, Databases and CASE, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York (1992)
34.
Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M.: Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8(4), 325–362 (1990)CrossRef
35.
Nardi, J.C., Falbo, R., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Ferreira Pires, L., van Sinderen, M., Guarino, N.: Towards a commitment-based reference ontology for services. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2013), pp. 175–184. IEEE Computer Society Press (2013)
36.
Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Wellington, New Zealand (2009)
37.
Neumayr, B., Jeusfeld, M. A., Schrefl, M., Schütz, C.: Dual deep instantiation and It ConceptBase implementation. In: Proceedings 26th International CAiSE Conference (CAiSE 2014), pp. 503–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
38.
Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M., Thalhiem, B.: Modeling techniques formulti-level abstraction. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) LNCS, vol. 6520, pp 68–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
39.
Odell, J.: Power types. J. Object Oriented Program. 7(2), 8–12 (1994)
40.
Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007)MATH
41.
OMG : UML Superstructure Specification—Version 2.4.1 (2011)
42.
OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification—Version 2.4.1 (2013)
43.
Pereira, D., Almeida, J.P.A.: Representing organizational structures in an enterprise architecture language. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry (FOMI 2014), Rio de Janeiro (2014)
44.
Pirotte, A., Zimanyi, E., Massart, D., Yakusheva, T.: Materialization: a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern. In: Bocca, J., Jarke, M., Zaniolo, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large DataBases (VLDB’94), pp. 630–641 (1994)
45.
Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Q. 35(1), 1–9 (2011)CrossRef
46.
47.
Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2008)
48.
49.
Metadaten
Titel
Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling
verfasst von
Victorio A. Carvalho
João Paulo A. Almeida
Publikationsdatum
30.06.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0538-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Software and Systems Modeling 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

SoSyM reflections of 2017: a journal status report

Special Section Paper

Model-driven development of mobile applications for Android and iOS supporting role-based app variability

Theme Section Paper

Formalization of the classification pattern: survey of classification modeling in information systems engineering

Guest Editorial

Editorial to the theme issue on multi-level modeling

Special Section Paper

Leveraging annotation-based modeling with Jump

Special Section Paper

A Model-based approach for the synthesis of software to firmware adapters for use with automatically generated components