Advertisement

Metamodels as a Conceptual Structure: Some Semantical and Syntactical Operations

  • Dimitris KaragiannisEmail author
  • Dominik Bork
  • Wilfrid Utz
Chapter

Abstract

Modern enterprises are under permanent pressure for change to cope with new competitors and integrate emerging technologies. These changes involve adaptation of processes, operations, architectures, value propositions, and the response to evolving market requirements—especially regarding the digitalization. Modelling methods are an established approach for the conceptual representation, design, analysis, and implementation of complex systems and have gained much attention in both, academia and industry. At the core of a modelling method is the metamodel as a formalized specification of the syntactic nature of the domain under consideration. The paper at hand amplifies the notion of metamodels toward “metamodels as a conceptual structure” and introduces semantic and syntactic operations applied to this structure. Based on recent advances in the field, this paper shows, how metamodels as a conceptual structure facilitate managing complexity in fast changing environments.

Keywords

Metamodels Conceptual modelling Model processing Linked data Consistency 

References

  1. ADOxx.org. (2018). ADOxx metamodeling platform.Google Scholar
  2. Awadid, A., Bork, D., Karagiannis, D., & Nurcan, S. (2018). Toward generic consistency paterns in multi-view enterprise modelling. In European Conference on Information Systems. Portsmouth, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J., Beverungen, D., Breuker, D., Hanns-Alexander, D., & Rauer, H. P. (2013a). Performance benchmarking for designing interaction routines-managing trade-offs in service co-creation with the data envelopment analysis. In ECIS 2013 Proceedings (p. 185).Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J., Beverungen, D., Knackstedt, R., Matzner, M., Müller, O., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2013b). Designing interaction routines in service networks: A modularity and social construction-based approach. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J., vom Brocke, J., Heddier, M., & Seidel, S. (2015). In search of information systems (grand) challenges. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(6), 337–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., & Schwittay, S. (2012). Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches—A state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. Business Research, 5(2), 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bork, D. (2018). Metamodel-based analysis of domain-specific conceptual modeling methods. In 11th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modelling (pp. 172-187). Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bork, D., Buchmann, R., & Karagiannis, D. (2015). Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (pp. 177–182). Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bork, D., & Fill, H. G. (2014). Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: A comparison framework. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3400–3409).Google Scholar
  10. Bork, D., Karagiannis, D., & Pittl, B. (2018). How are metamodels specified in practice? Empirical insights and recommendations. In 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–11). New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Del Fabro, M. D., & Valduriez, P. (2007). Semi-automatic model integration using matching transformations and weaving models. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 963–970).Google Scholar
  12. Efendioglu, N., Woitsch, R., & Utz, W. (2016). A toolbox supporting agile modelling method engineering: ADOxx. org modelling method conceptualization environment. In IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (pp. 317–325). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Ferstl, O. K., & Sinz, E. J. (2013). Grundlagen der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Walter der Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Ferstl, O. K., Sinz, E. J., & Bork, D. (2016). Tool support for the semantic object model. Domain-specific conceptual modeling (pp. 291–310). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fill, H. G. (2011). On the conceptualization of a modeling language for semantic model annotations. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (pp. 134–148). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Götzinger, D., Miron, E.-T., & Staffel, F. (2016). OMiLAB: An open collaborative environment for modeling method engineering. In Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling (pp. 55–76). Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Höfferer, P. (2007). Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1620–1631).Google Scholar
  18. Hrgovcic, V., Karagiannis, D., & Woitsch, R. (2013). Conceptual modeling of the organisational aspects for distributed applications: The semantic lifting approach. In IEEE 37th Annual of Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (pp. 145–150).Google Scholar
  19. Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4178548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karagiannis, D., & Buchmann, R. A. (2016). Linked open models: Extending linked open data with conceptual model information. Information Systems, 56, 174–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R. A., & Walch, M. (2017). How can diagrammatic conceptual modelling support knowledge management? In European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1568–1583).Google Scholar
  22. Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R., & Bork, D. (2016). Managing consistency in multi-view enterprise models: An approach based on semantic queries. In 24th European Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  23. Karagiannis, D., & Fill, H. G. (2013). On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 8(1), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karagiannis, D., & Kühn, H. (2002). Metamodelling platforms. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference EC-Web, 2455 (p. 182).Google Scholar
  25. Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H. C., & Mylopoulus, J. (2016). Domain-specific conceptual modeling. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Mylopoulus, J. (1992). Conceptual modelling and telos. Conceptual modelling, databases, and CASE: An integrated view of information system development. Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Prackwieser, C., Buchmann, R., Grossmann, W., & Karagiannis, D. (2013). Towards a generic hybrid simulation algorithm based on a semantic mapping and rule evaluation approach. In International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (pp. 147–160). Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Woitsch, R. (2013). Hybrid modelling with ADOxx: Virtual enterprise interoperability using meta models. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (pp. 298–303). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38490-5_28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zivkovic, S., Kuhn, H., & Karagiannis, D. (2007). Facilitate modelling using method integration: An approach using mappings and integration rules. In European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 2038–2049).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Karagiannis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dominik Bork
    • 1
  • Wilfrid Utz
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations