Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Characterizing Conceptual Modeling Research

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2019 Conferences (OTM 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11877))

Abstract

The field of conceptual modeling continues to evolve and be applied to important modeling problems in many domains. With a goal of articulating the breadth and depth of the field, our initial work focused on the many implicit and explicit definitions of conceptual modeling, resulting in the Characterizing Conceptual Modeling (CCM) framework. In this paper, we focus on conceptual modeling research, presenting a Characterizing Conceptual Model Research (CCMR) framework and a series of evaluations to assess the coverage and usability of CCMR, the utility and independence of the individual fields in the framework, and likelihood of consistent use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    As examples of philosophical grounding, Wand and Weber take an ontological perspective to understanding information systems from a conceptual modeling perspective [44]. Guizzardi provides another kind of ontological foundation for conceptual models [11]. Guarino has long argued for the role of ontologies in conceptual modeling [10].

  2. 2.

    Note that our characterizations of these and the other \(3+6\) papers have not been vetted by the original authors of the research work. We, and not the original authors, are solely responsible for these characterizations.

  3. 3.

    We use the term metadata fields here as used in the digital library field: metadata describes the library item of interest. Typical metadata fields include such items as author and subject.

References

  1. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(4), 323–364 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J. (eds.): On Conceptual Modelling, Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases, and Programming Languages. Topics in Information Systems. Springer, New York (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5196-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model–toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Delcambre, L.M.L., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O., Storey, V.C.: Characterizing conceptual modeling workshop call for participation (2018). http://conceptualmodeling.org/er2018/ccm.pdf

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Delcambre, L.M.L., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O., Storey, V.C.: A reference framework for conceptual modeling. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 27–42. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Delcambre, L.M.L., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O., Storey, V.C.: A reference framework for conceptual modeling: focusing on conceptual modeling research. Technical report (2019). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331653768

  7. Embley, D.W., et al.: Conceptual-model-based data extraction from multiple-record web pages. Data Knowl. Eng. 31(3), 227–251 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Embley, D., Thalheim, B. (eds.): Handbook of Conceptual Modeling-Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15865-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Flynn, M.J.: Some computer organizations and their effectiveness. IEEE Trans. Comput. 21(9), 948–960 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proceedings of FOIS 1998, pp. 3–15 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C.M., Benevides, A.B., Almeida, J.P.A., Porello, D., Sales, T.P.: Endurant types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling: towards OntoUML 2.0. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 136–150. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45816-6_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hai, R., Quix, C., Kensche, D.: Nested schema mappings for integrating JSON. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 397–405. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Halpin, T.: Modeling of reference schemes. In: Nurcan, S., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 308–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic database modeling: survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Comput. Surv. 19(3), 201–260 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ishikawa, F.: Concepts in quality assessment for machine learning - from test data to arguments. ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 536–544. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Kitchenham, B.A., Brereton, P.: A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(12), 2049–2075 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitchenham, B.A., Dybå, T., Jørgensen, M.: Evidence-based software engineering. In: 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), 23–28 May 2004, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp. 273–281 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. de Leoni, M., Felli, P., Montali, M.: A holistic approach for soundness verification of decision-aware process models. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 219–235. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, L., Lin, C., Lai, Y.: Realtime event summarization from tweets with inconsistency detection. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 555–570. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Maass, W., Shcherbatyi, I.: Inductive discovery by machine learning for identification of structural models. ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 545–552. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maté, A., Trujillo, J., Mylopoulos, J.: Key performance indicator elicitation and selection through conceptual modelling. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 73–80. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modeling and Telos. conceptual modelling. In: Databases and CASE: An Integrated View of Information Systems Development, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York, NY (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nguyen, H., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Multi-perspective comparison of business process variants based on event logs. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 449–459. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39390-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Pastor, O., Gómez, J., Insfrán, E., Pelechano, V.: The OO-method approach for information systems modeling: from object-oriented conceptual modeling to automated programming. Inf. Syst. 26(7), 507–534 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pastor, O., Levin, A.M., Casamayor, J.C., Celma, M., van der Kroon, M.: A conceptual modeling approach to improve human genome understanding. In: Embley, D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling - Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges, pp. 517–541. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15865-0_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Peckham, J., Maryanski, F.J.: Semantic data models. ACM Comput. Surv. 20(3), 153–189 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2008, 26–27 June 2008. University of Bari, Italy (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., Kuzniarz, L.: Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64, 1–18 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ruiz, M., Costal, D., España, S., Franch, X., Pastor, O.: GoBIS: an integrated framework to analyse the goal and business process perspectives in information systems. Inf. Syst. 53, 330–345 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sales, T.P., Baião, F., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The common ontology of value and risk. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 121–135. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Santos, M., Gralha, C., Goulão, M., Araújo, J.: Increasing the semantic transparency of the KAOS goal model concrete syntax. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 424–439. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Storey, V.C.: Understanding semantic relationships. VLDB J. 2(4), 455–488 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J., Liddle, S.W.: Research on conceptual modeling: themes, topics, and introduction to the special issue. Data Knowl. Eng. 98, 1–7 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Teorey, T.J., Yang, D., Fry, J.P.: A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(2), 197–222 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Terwilliger, J.F., Delcambre, L.M.L., Logan, J.: The user interface is the conceptual model. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 424–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11901181_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Thalheim, B.: The science and art of conceptual modelling. Trans. Large-Scale Data Knowl.-Centered Syst. 6, 76–105 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thalheim, B.: Conceptual model notions–a matter of controversy: conceptual modelling and its Lacunas. Enterp. Modell. Inf. Syst. Architect. 13, 9–27 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tsoury, A., Soffer, P., Reinhartz-Berger, I.: A conceptual framework for supporting deep exploration of business process behavior. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 58–71. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the deep structure of information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 5(3), 203–223 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Wieringa, R.J., Maiden, N.A.M., Mead, N.R., Rolland, C.: Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requir. Eng. 11(1), 102–107 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zave, P.: Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Comput. Surv. 29(4), 315–321 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants of the interactive workshop at ER2018 and other research seminar participants who shared their characterizations of CM research papers using CCMR. We also thank Roel Wieringa for his comments on an earlier version of this paper. This work was supported in part by Brigham Young University, Georgia State University, and the Universitat Politècnica de València.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Lois M. L. Delcambre

  2. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

    Stephen W. Liddle

  3. Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

    Oscar Pastor

  4. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Veda C. Storey

Authors
  1. Lois M. L. Delcambre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen W. Liddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oscar Pastor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veda C. Storey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen W. Liddle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy Cedex, France

    Hervé Panetto

  2. Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Christophe Debruyne

  3. Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany

    Martin Hepp

  4. Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Dave Lewis

  5. Università degli Studi di Milano Crema, Crema, Italy

    Claudio Agostino Ardagna

  6. TU Graz, Graz, Austria

    Robert Meersman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Delcambre, L.M.L., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O., Storey, V.C. (2019). Characterizing Conceptual Modeling Research. In: Panetto, H., Debruyne, C., Hepp, M., Lewis, D., Ardagna, C., Meersman, R. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2019 Conferences. OTM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11877. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33246-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33246-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33245-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33246-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation