Initial Results from a Study on Personal Semantics of Conceptual Modeling Languages

  • Dirk van der Linden
  • Khaled Gaaloul
  • Wolfgang Molnar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7337)


In this paper we present the initial results from our longitudinal study into the personal semantics of common meta-concepts used in conceptual modeling. People have an implicit understanding of many of the meta-concepts used for modeling purposes, although these are rarely ever made explicit. We argue that a proper understanding of how modelers personally interpret the meta-concepts they use in nearly all of their (domain) models can aid in several things, e.g. explicating a modeler’s (proto)typical concept usage, finding communities that share a conceptual understanding and matching individual modelers to each other. Our initial results include the analysis of data resulting from our study so far and a discussion what hypotheses they support.


conceptual modeling personal semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aimé, X., Furst, F., Kuntz, P., Trichet, F.: Ontology Personalization: An Approach Based on Conceptual Prototypicality. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Zhang, X., Wang, S., Strasunskas, D., Tomassen, S.L., Rao, J., Li, W.-S., Candan, K.S., Chiu, D.K.W., Zhuang, Y., Ellis, C.A., Kim, K.-H. (eds.) WCMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5731, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida, M.B.: A proposal to evaluate ontology content. Applied Ontology 4, 245–265 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayala, et al.: A comparative analysis of i*-based agent-oriented modeling languages. In: SEKE 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 43–50 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Buuren, R., Gordijn, J., Janssen, W.: Business case modelling for e-services. In: 18 th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing language: conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katifori, V., Poggi, A., Scannapieco, M., Catarci, T., Ioannidis, Y.: Ontopim: how to rely on a personal ontology for personal information management. In: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on The Semantic Desktop. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling–the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(4), 205–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Linden, D.J.T., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Lartseva, A., Proper, H.A(E.): Towards an Investigation of the Conceptual Landscape of Enterprise Architecture. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 526–535. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Nuffel, D., Mulder, H., Van Kervel, S.: Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO!/EOMAS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sowa, J.: The role of logic and ontology in language and reasoning. In: Poli, R., Seibt, J. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 231–263. Springer, Netherlands (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uschold, M.: Making the case for ontology. Applied Ontology (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verhagen, T., Meents, S.: A framework for developing semantic differentials in is research: Assessing the meaning of electronic marketplace quality (emq). Serie Research Memoranda 0016, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilke, C., Demuth, B.: Uml is still inconsistent! how to improve ocl constraints in the uml 2.3 superstructure. Electronic Communications of the EASST 44 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk van der Linden
    • 1
    • 2
  • Khaled Gaaloul
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Molnar
    • 1
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations