Semi-automatic Development of Modelling Techniques with Computational Linguistics Methods – A Procedure Model and Its Application

  • Thorsten SchoormannEmail author
  • Dennis BehrensEmail author
  • Ulrich Heid
  • Ralf Knackstedt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 288)


In recent years, the number of domain-specific modelling techniques increased. Method engineering already provides text-based and semantic approaches which aim to unify constructs and allocate terminologies. As existing procedures are usually carried out manually, challenges arise such as reproducibility and standardization as well as ensuring quality. Hence, this paper aims to investigate how methods from the Computational Linguistics can be applied to automatically develop domain-specific modelling techniques in order to face these challenges. As a main result, we present a procedure model that was developed and applied in four iterations, recommend tools, methods and resources as well as reflect typical issues.


Method engineering Procedure model Text-Analytics Computational linguistics Conceptual modelling 



This research is partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the State of Lower Saxony (Investitions- und Förderbank Niedersachsen) in the scope of the research project “SmartHybrid – Process Engineering” (ID: ZW 6-85003451). We like to thank them for their support.


  1. 1.
    Pfeiffer, D., Niehaves, B.: Evaluation of conceptual models – a structuralist approach. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), p. 43 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts. Requirements Eng. 10(2), 146–160 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J., Karow, M., Müller-Wienbergen, F.: Applying lessons learned from counselling: on nurturing relations in design projects. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), p. 54 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guizzardi, G., Ferreira Pires, L., Van Sinderen, M. J.: On the role of domain ontologies in the design of domain-specific visual modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM OOPSLA (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kishore, R., Sharman, R.: Computational ontologies and information systems I: foundations. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (CAIS) 14, 158–183 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fellmann, M., Thomas, O., Busch, B.: A query-driven approach for checking the semantic correctness of ontology-based process representations. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 87, pp. 62–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21863-7_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K., Welke, R.J.: Method Engineering Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, Y.: Semantic annotation for process models: facilitating process knowledge management via semantic interoperability. Ph.D. thesis, University of Trondheim (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), pp. 2206–2217 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Pfeiffer, D.: Ontological evaluation of conceptual models. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 83–110 (2008). Article 4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, H., Kishore, R., Ramesh, R.: Ontological analysis of the MibML grammar using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. In: Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), p. 553 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. In: Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), p. 384 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Janiesch, C.: Percieved evaluability - development of a theoretical model and a measurement scale. In: Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), p. 153 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milton, S., Kazmierczak, E., Keen, C.: Data modelling languages: an ontological study. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), p. 304 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofferer, P.: Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), pp. 1620–1631 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D.: Solving the conflicts of distributed process modelling: towards an integrated approach. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), p. 90 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gehlert, A., Buckmann, U., Esswein, W.: Ontology based method engineering. In: Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), p. 436 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holten, R., Dreiling, A., Becker, J.: Ontology-Driven Method Engineering for Information Systems Development. In: Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies, pp. 174–217. IDEA Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Integrating multi-perspective views into ontological analysis. In: International Conference in Information Systems (ICIS) (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosemann, M., Wyssusek, B.: Enhancing the expressiveness of the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology. In: American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), p. 438 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niknafs, A., Ramsin, R.: Computer-aided method engineering: an analysis of existing environments. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 525–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leppänen, M.: An ontological framework of method engineering: an overall structure. In: 10th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2007), pp. 11–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schoormann, T., Behrens, D., Knackstedt, R.: Carsharing Geschäftsmodelle – Entwicklung eines bausteinbasierten Modellierungsansatzes. In: Thomas, O., Nüttgens, M., Fellmann, M. (eds.) Smart Service Engineering, pp. 303–325. Springer, Fachmedien (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kliche, F., Blessing, A., Heid, U., Sonntag, J.: The eIdentity text exploration workbench. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), pp. 691–697 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahmad, K., Rogers, M.: Terminology management: a corpus-based approach. In: Translating and the Computer 14: Quality Standards and the Implementation of Technology in Translation, pp. 33–44 (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Björkelund, A., Bohnet, B., Hafdell, L., Nugues, P: A high-performance syntactic and semantic dependency parser. In: Proceedings of the 23rd COLING, pp. 33–36 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cap, F.: Morphological processing of compounds for statistical machine translation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rösiger, I., Schäfer, J., George, T., Tannert, S., Heid, U., Dorna, M.: Extracting terms and their relations from German texts: NLP tools for the preparation of raw material for e-dictionaries. In: eLex Proceedings, Herstmonceux Castle, UK (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zwicky, F.: Discovery, Invention, Research - Through the Morphological Approach. The Macmillan Company, Toronto (1969)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strahinger, S.: Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenvergleichs: Eine Evaluierung am Beispiel objektorientierter Analysenmethoden. Shaker Verlag, Aachen (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schalles, C.: Usability Evaluation of Modeling Languages. Springer Science, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Räckers, M.: Domain specific process modelling in public administrations – the PICTURE-approach. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bakhshandeh, M., Pesquita, C., Borbinha, J.: An ontological matching approach for enterprise architecture model analysis. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (eds.) BIS 2016. LNBIP, vol. 255, pp. 315–326. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39426-8_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gailly, F., Poels, G.: Towards ontology-driven information systems: redesign and formalization of the REA ontology. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 245–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72035-5_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Reijers, Hajo A.: On the Automatic Labeling of Process Models. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 512–520. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rajman, M., Vesely, M.: From text to knowledge: document processing and visualization: a text mining approach. In: Sirmakessis, S. (ed.) Text Mining and Its Applications. STUDFUZZ, vol. 138, pp. 7–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bailey, K.D.: Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pittke, F., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: Automatic detection and resolution of lexical ambiguity in process models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(6), 526–544 (2015). doi: 10.1109/TSE.2015.2396895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of HildesheimHildesheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Information Science and Computational LinguisticsUniversity of HildesheimHildesheimGermany

Personalised recommendations