Towards an Investigation of the Conceptual Landscape of Enterprise Architecture

  • D. J. T. van der Linden
  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
  • A. Lartseva
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 81)


In this paper we discuss our preliminary work on clarifying the conceptual landscape of Enterprise Architecture. We do so to aid in the integration of conceptual models originating from different communities (of language users, concerns, viewpoints etc.). We propose that discovering the basic ontological structure used by these communities is necessary for the effective integration of models, and that different communities have a distinguishable different central understanding of some categories in their ontology. Our initial results include the description and categorization analysis of several languages and methods used in EA (as used by their creators), which suggest a prototype structure reflecting a community’s focus.


enterprise architecture ontology model integration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adelson, B.: Comparing natural and abstract categories: A case study from computer science. Cognitive Science 9(4), 417 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkman, R.M., Quartel, D.A.C., van Sinderen, M.J.: Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(7-8), 737–752 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferrariolo, D., Cugini, J., Kuhn, R.: Role-based access control (rbac): Features and motivations. In: Proc. of the 11th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordijn, J., Yu, E., van der Raadt, B.: e-service design using i* and e3value modeling. IEEE Software 23, 26–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grau, G., Horkoff, J., Yu, E., Abdulhadi, S.: i* guide 3.0. Internet (August 2007),
  7. 7.
    Green, N., Bate, C.: Lost in Translation. Evolved Technologist (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing language: conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71–79 (January-February 1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.D.: Quality of interactive models. In: Olivé, À., Yoshikawa, M., Yu, E.S.K. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2784, pp. 351–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling–the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(4), 205–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: From requirements to architectural design - using goals and scenarios. In: Software Requirements to Architectures Workshop, STRAW 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Majid, A., van Staden, M., Boster, J., Bowerman, M.: Event categorization: A cross-linguistic perspective. In: Proc. of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Neumann, J.: Theory Of Games And Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Business process model and notation (bpmn) ftf beta 1 for version 2.0. Internet (2010),
  17. 17.
    Opdahl, A.L., Berio, G.: Interoperable language and model management using the ueml approach. In: Proc. of the 2006 International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management, pp. 35–42. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1957)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patig, S.: Modeling deployment of enterprise applications. In: Soffer, P., Proper, E. (eds.) CAiSE Forum 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 72, pp. 253–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosch, E.: Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 328–350 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, p. 376. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ulrich, F., Heise, D., Kattenstroth, H., Ferguson, D.F., Hadar, E., Waschke, M.G.: Itml: A domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven it management. In: Proc. of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on DSM (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 13(01), 31–89 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wyssusek, B.: On ontological foundations of conceptual modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 18, 63–80 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. T. van der Linden
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
    • 2
  • A. Lartseva
    • 3
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and BehaviourNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations