3D vs. 4D Ontologies in Enterprise Modeling

  • Michaël Verdonck
  • Frederik Gailly
  • Geert Poels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8823)


This paper presents a comparison between a 3D and a 4D ontology, with the purpose of identifying modeling variations that arise from using these different kinds of ontologies. The modeling variations are illustrated by using two enterprise modeling enigmas to which both ontologies are applied. The goal of our comparison is to demonstrate that the choice of an ontology impacts on the representation of real world phenomena and will eventually result in different enterprise models.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26, 15–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vernadat, F.: UEML: Towards a Unified Enterprise Modelling Language. International Journal of Production Research 40, 4309–4321 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grüninger, M., Atefi, K., Fox, M.: Ontologies to support process integration in enterprise engineering. Computational & Mathematical Organization, 381–394 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Opdahl, A.L., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Matulevičius, R.: An ontology for enterprise and information systems modeling. Applied Ontology 7, 49–92 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisitions 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wand, Y.: Ontology as a foundation for meta-modeling and method engineering. Information and Software Technology 38, 281–287 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Staab, S.: What Is an Ontology? In: Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 1–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hales, S.D.S., Johnson, T.T.A.: Endurantism, perdurantism and special relativity. The Philosophical Quarterly 53, 524–539 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Can BPMN Be Used for Making Simulation Models? In: Barjis, J., Eldabi, T., Gupta, A. (eds.) EOMAS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 88, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-engineering for Reuse. Butterworth-Heinemann (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: WonderWeb Deliverable D17. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Using the Unified Foundational Ontology ( UFO ) as a Foundation for General Conceptual Modeling Languages. Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, 175–196 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al Debei, M.M.: Conceptual Modeling and the Quality of Ontologies: Endurantism Vs Perdurantism. International Journal of Database Management Systems 4, 1–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards Ontological Foundations for the Conceptual Modeling of Events Background: The Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masolo, C., Guizzardi, G., Vieu, L.: Relational roles and qua-individuals. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Roles, pp. 103–112 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hadar, I.: When intuition and logic clash: The case of the object-oriented paradigm. Science of Computer Programming 78, 1407–1426 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaël Verdonck
    • 1
  • Frederik Gailly
    • 1
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations