Abstract
This paper conducts an empirical study that explores the differences between adopting a traditional conceptual modeling (TCM) technique and an ontology-driven conceptual modeling (ODCM) technique with the objective to understand how these techniques influence the consistency between the resulting conceptual models. To determine these differences, we first briefly discuss previous research efforts and compose our hypothesis. Next, this hypothesis is tested in a rigorously developed experiment, where a total of 100 students from two different Universities participated. The findings of our empirical study confirm that there do exist meaningful differences between adopting the two techniques. We observed that novice modelers applying the ODCM technique arrived at higher consistent models compared to novice modelers applying the TCM technique. More specifically, our results indicate that the adoption of an ontological way of thinking facilitates modelers in constructing higher consistent models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
References
Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11, 42–49 (1994)
Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1631–1645 (2009)
Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D.M., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Inconsistency handling in multperspective specifications. Tse. 20, 569–578 (1994)
Muskens, J., Bril, R.J., Chaudron, M.R.V: Generalizing consistency checking between software views. In: Proceedings of the 5th Work. IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture WICSA 2005, pp. 169–180 (2005)
Wand, W.R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf. Syst. J. 3, 217–237 (1993)
Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for conceptual modeling with applications. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 695–696. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_45
Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11, 93–116 (1996)
Buder, J., Felden, C.: Ontological analysis of value models. In: ECIS 2011 Proceedings (2011)
Hoehndorf, R., Ngomo, A.C.N., Herre, H.: Developing consistent and modular software models with ontologies. Front. Artif. Intell. Appl. 199, 399–412 (2009)
Bera, P.: Analyzing the cognitive difficulties for developing and using UML class diagrams for domain understanding. J. Database Manag. 23, 1–29 (2012)
Evermann, W.Y., Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontological modeling rules for UML: an empirical assessment. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 46, 14–29 (2006)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2
Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25, 571–592 (2009)
Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Towards ontological foundations for agent modelling concepts using the unified fundational ontology (UFO). In: Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS -2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3508, pp. 110–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11426714_8
Grüninger, M., Fox, Mark S.: The role of competency questions in enterprise engineering. In: Rolstadås, A. (ed.) Benchmarking — Theory and Practice. IAICT, pp. 22–31. Springer, Boston, MA (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34847-6_3
Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model : a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference of Information Systems (ECIS), pp. 1327–1336 (2003)
Daga, A., et al.: An ontological approach for recovering legacy business content. In: Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 00, pp. 1–9 (2005)
De Cesare, S., Partridge, C.: BORO as a foundation to enterprise ontology. J. Inf. Syst. 30, 83–112 (2016)
Falessi, D., et al.: Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1–38 (2017)
Verdonck, M., Gailly, F.: An exploratory analysis on the comprehension of 3D and 4D ontology-driven conceptual models. In: Link, S., Trujillo, Juan C. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9975, pp. 163–172. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47717-6_14
Shao, J., Wang, H., Chow, S.-C.: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. Chapman & Hall/.CRC, New York (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Verdonck, M., Pergl, R., Gailly, F. (2018). Empirical Comparison of Model Consistency Between Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling and Traditional Conceptual Modeling. In: Trujillo, J., et al. Conceptual Modeling. ER 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11157. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00846-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00847-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)