Conceptual modeling traditionally focuses on a high level of abstraction. Even if geographical aspects such as location is included in several enterprise modeling frameworks [26], it is not common to have geographical aspects included in conceptual models. Cartography is the science of visualizing geographical information in maps. Traditionally the field has not included conceptual relationships and the primary focus is on a fairly low abstraction level. Both cartography and conceptual modeling have developed guidelines for obtaining high quality visualizations. SEQUAL is a quality framework developed for understanding quality in conceptual models and modeling languages. In cartography such counterparts are not common to find. An attempt to adapt SEQUAL in the context of cartographic maps has been performed, named MAPQUAL. The paper presents MAPQUAL. Differences between quality of maps and quality of conceptual models are highlighted, pointing to guidelines for combined representations which are the current focus of our work. An example of such combined use is presented indicating the usefulness of a combined framework.


Quality of models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bardram, J., Bossen, C.: Mobility Work: The Spatial Dimension of Collaboration at a Hospital. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14, 131–160 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardram, J., Hansen, T.R., Soegaard, M.: AwareMedia – A Shared Interactive Display Supporting Social, Temporal, and Spatial Awareness in Surgery. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 4-8 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Chen, P.: The Entity-Relationship model – Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.: Domain-Specific Modeling and Model Driven Architecture. MDA Journal, 2–10 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, A., Overmeyer, M., Jordan, S., Caruso, K., Dandashi, J., Dinh, F., Kincaid, A., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, G., Sitaram, P., Ta, P., Theofanos, M.: Identifying and Measuring Quality in a Software Requirements Specification. In: Proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium, pp. 141–152 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: Applying the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gartner, G., Bennett, D., Morita, T.: Towards Ubiquitous Cartography. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 34(4), 247–257 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hepp, M., Roman, D.: An Ontology Framework for Semantic Business Process Management. In: 8th International Conference Wirtschaftsinformatik, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 423–440 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Information Systems Engineering - Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective, Kompendiumforlaget (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacEachren, A.: How Maps Work. Guilford Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCarty, J.F., Meidel, E.S.: ActiveMap: A Visualization Tool for Location Awareness to Support Informal Interactions. In: Gellersen, H.-W. (ed.) HUC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1707, p. 158. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What Makes a Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) ER 1994. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 94–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moody, D.: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Evaluating the Quality of Conceptual Models: Current State and Future Directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moody, D., van Hillergersberg, J.: Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams. In: Proceedings of Software Language Engineering (SLE 2008), Toulouse, France, September 29-30 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nossum, A.: MAPQUAL: Understanding Quality in Cartographic Maps, Technical report, Norwegian Technical University of Science and Technology (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nöth, W.: Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model. Software and Systems Modeling (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renolen, A.: Concepts and Methods for Modeling Temporal and Spatiotemporal Information, PhD thesis, NTNU (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson, A., Sale, R., Morrison, J.: Elements of Cartography. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sedera, W., Rosemann, M., Doebeli, G.: A Process Modelling Success Model: Insights From A Case Study. In: 11th European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skupin, A., Fabrikant, S.: Spatialisation Methods: A Cartographic Research Agenda for Non-geographic Information Visualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30(2), 99–119 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–291 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3(4), 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ware, C.: Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    White, S.A.: Introduction to BPMN, IBM Cooperation (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nossum
    • 1
  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  1. 1.NTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations