Integrated Approach for Modelling of Semantic and Pragmatic Dependencies of Information Systems

  • Remigijus Gustas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1507)


Traditional semantic models are based on entity notations provided by several links. Links are established to capture semantic detail about relationships among concepts. The ability to describe a process in a clear and sufficiently rich way is acknowledged as crucial to conceptual modelling. Current workflow models used in business process re-engineering offer limited analytical capabilities. Entity-Relationship models and Data Flow Diagrams are closer to the technical system development stage and, therefore, they do not capture organisational aspects. Although object-oriented models are quite comprehensible for users, they are not provided by rules of reasoning and complete integration between static and dynamic diagrams. The ultimate objective of this paper is to introduce principles of integration for different classes of semantic and pragmatic representations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Action Technologies. Action Workflow Analysis Users Guide. Action Technologies (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgida, A.T.: Generalisation/Specialisation as a Basis for Software Specification. In: Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.W. (eds.) On Conceptual Modelling, pp. 87–112. Springer, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brachman, R., Schmolze, J.G.: An Overview of the KLONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive science 9(2), 171–212 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Codd, E.F.: The Relational Model for Database Management. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, G.B., Olson, M.: Management Information Systems. McGraw Hill, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falkenberg, E.D., et al.: A Framework of Information System Concepts. The Report of the IFIP WG8.1 Task Group FRISCO (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F3 Consortium. F3 Reference Manual (Esprit III Project 6612), SISU, Kista, Sweden (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Information as Action and Communication. The Infological Equation, Goteborg University, Sweden, pp. 63–79 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gustas, R., Bubenko Jr., J., Wangler, B.: Goal Driven Enterprise Modelling: Bridging Pragmatic and Semantic Descriptions of Information Systems. In: Tanaka, Y., Kangassalo, H., Jaakola, H., Yamamoto, A. (eds.) Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases VII, pp. 73–91. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gustas, R.: Towards Understanding and Formal Definition of Conceptual Constraints. In: Proc. of the European-Japanese seminar on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases VI, pp. 381–399. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gustas, R.: A Basis for Integration within Enterprise Modelling. In: Second Int. Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Washington, DC Area, August 23-25, pp. 107–120 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustas, R.: A Framework for Description of Pragmatic Dependencies and Inconsistency of Goals. In: Proc. of the second Int. conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Juan-Les-Pins, France, June 12-14, pp. 625–643 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin, J., Odell, J.J.: Object-Oriented Methods: Foundation. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riddle, W.E.: Fundamental Process Modelling Concepts. In: NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems, May 8-10 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siau, K., Wand, Y., Benbasat, I.: The Relative Importance of Structural Constraints and Surface Semantics in Information Modelling. Information Systems 22(2/3), 155–170 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal 31(3), 590–616 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Storey, V.C.: Understanding Semantic Relationships. Marianski, F. (ed.) VLDB Journal 2, 455–487 (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: From E-R to ’A-R’ - Modelling Strategic Actor Relationships for Business Process Reengineering. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) 13th Int. Conf. on the Entity - Relationship Approach, Manchester, U.K (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yourdon, E.: Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weigand, H., Verharen, E., Dignum, F.: Dynamic Business Models as a basis for Interoperable Transaction Design. Information Systems 22(2/3), 139–154 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Norwood, NJ (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remigijus Gustas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of KarlstadKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations