Abstract
A business enterprise is more than its buildings, equipment or financial statements. Enterprise Architecture frameworks thus include a metamodel that attempts to bring together all the enterprise concepts including the visible entities into a unified conceptual structure. Using a case study based upon the institution of the authors, the effectiveness of this conceptual structure is explored in two fold. Firstly, a simple example using familiar concepts such as the physical location of the authors’ institution. Secondly, a more detailed example that includes the key enterprise concepts that currently exist within that institution. The metamodel is stated in Conceptual Graphs then mapped from these graphs’ triples into transitive Formal Concept binaries using the CGFCA software. Misalignments within the enterprise concepts discovered from the derived formal concepts are highlighted in both case examples, hence pointing towards the wider applicability of this approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
{ } denote ‘plural’ referents, meaning they hold more than one referent. Here NSS-data may be one of many datasets that collectively provide KPIs of SHU’s strategy and shown simply to illustrate multiple cardinality of concepts. The Staff type label would also have a plural referent to depict the many staff that SHU employs. Plural referents are however not elaborated further for this simple case study’s purposes.
- 2.
- 3.
The tools tend to depict the models and metamodels in other notations such as UML (www.uml.org), but this underlying remark still holds true.
References
Global University Alliance: Industry standards research: the value of applying standards to increase the level of reusability, replication and standardization (2018). http://www.globaluniversityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Global-University-Alliance-Research-Industry-Standard.pdf
Andrews, S., Polovina, S.: A mapping from conceptual graphs to formal concept analysis. In: Andrews, S., Polovina, S., Hill, R., Akhgar, B. (eds.) ICCS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6828, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22688-5_5
Chandler Jr., A.D.: Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge (1962)
The Open Group: 34. Content metamodel (2011). http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap34.html
Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)
Hitzler, P., Scharfe, H.: Conceptual Structures in Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)
Polovina, S.: An introduction to conceptual graphs. In: Priss, U., Polovina, S., Hill, R. (eds.) ICCS-ConceptStruct 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4604, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73681-3_1
Polovina, S., Andrews, S.: CGs to FCA including Peirce’s Cuts. Int. J. Concept. Struct. Smart Appl. (IJCSSA) 1(1), 90–103 (2013)
Polovina, S., Scheruhn, H.-J., von Rosing, M.: Modularising the complex meta-models in enterprise systems using conceptual structures. In: Sugumaran, V. (ed.) Developments and Trends in Intelligent Technologies and Smart Systems, pp. 261–283. IGI Global, Hershey (2018). ID: 189437
Porter, M.E.: How competitive forces shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57(2), 137–145 (1979). Article on the Positioning School of Strategy
LEADing Practice: Meta model reference content #LEAD-ES20021ALL (2018). http://www.leadingpractice.com
Roger Sessions: A comparison of the top four enterprise-architecture methodologies (2007). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx
Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual graphs. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 213–237. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)
Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 31(3), 590–616 (1992)
Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual Structures - Information Processing in Mind and Machine. The Systems Programming series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1984)
Sheffield Hallam University: Transforming lives (2017). http://www.shu.ac.uk/strategy
von Rosing, M., Fullington, N., Walker, J.: Using the business ontology and enterprise standards to transform three leading organizations. Int. J. Concept. Struct. Smart Appl. (IJCSSA) 4(1), 71–99 (2016). ID: 171392
von Rosing, M., Kirchmer, M.: Focusing business processes on superior value creation: value-oriented process modeling. In: von Rosing, M., Scheer, A.-W., von Scheel, H. (eds.) The Complete Business Process Handbook, pp. 479–496. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston (2015)
Zachman, J.A.: John Zachman’s concise definition of the Zachman framework. https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework
Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caine, J., Polovina, S. (2018). From Enterprise Concepts to Formal Concepts: A University Case Study. In: Croitoru, M., Marquis, P., Rudolph, S., Stapleton, G. (eds) Graph Structures for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. GKR 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10775. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78102-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78102-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78101-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78102-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)