Abstract
In this paper we discuss the use and challenges of identifying communities with shared semantics in Enterprise Modeling. People tend to understand modeling meta-concepts (i.e., a modeling language’s constructs or types) in a certain way and can be grouped by this understanding. Having an insight into the typical communities and their composition (e.g., what kind of people constitute a semantic community) would make it easier to predict how a conceptual modeler with a certain background will generally understand the meta-concepts he uses, which is useful for e.g., validating model semantics and improving the efficiency of the modeling process itself. We demonstrate the use of psychometric data from two studies involving experienced (enterprise) modeling practitioners and computing science students to find such communities, discuss the challenge that arises in finding common real-world factors shared between their members to identify them by and conclude that the common (often implicit) grouping properties such as similar background, focus and modeling language are not supported by empirical data.
Chapter PDF
References
Object Management Group: Business process model and notation (bpmn) ftf beta 1 for version 2.0. Internet (2010)
Gordijn, J., Yu, E., van der Raadt, B.: e-service design using i* and e3value modeling. IEEE Software 23, 26–33 (2006)
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)
Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling–the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(4), 205–216 (2004)
Kuehn, H., Bayer, F., Junginger, S., Karagiannis, D.: Enterprise Model Integration. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2003. LNCS, vol. 2738, pp. 379–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26(1), 15–25 (2002)
Opdahl, A.L., Berio, G.: Interoperable language and model management using the UEML approach. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management, pp. 35–42. ACM, New York (2006)
Sowa, J.: The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning. In: Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 231–263. Springer, Netherlands (2010)
Ayala, C.P., Cares, C., Carvallo, J.P., Grau, G., Haya, M., Salazar, G., Franch, X., Mayol, E., Quer, C.: A comparative analysis of i*-based agent-oriented modeling languages. In: SEKE 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 43–50 (2005)
Breu, R., Hinkel, U., Hofmann, C., Klein, C., Paech, B., Rumpe, B., Thurner, V.: Towards a Formalization of the Unified Modeling Language. In: Aksit, M., Auletta, V. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 344–366. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
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! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
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)
Henderson-Sellers, B.: UML - the Good, the Bad or the Ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software and System Modeling 4(1), 4–13 (2005)
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)
Wenger, E., Snyder, W.: Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78(1), 139–146 (2000)
Gumperz, J.: The speech community. In: Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, pp. 66–74. Wiley-Blackwell (2001)
Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing language: conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2003)
van der Linden, D., Gaaloul, K., Molnar, W.: Initial Results from a Study on Personal Semantics of Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds.) NLDB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7337, pp. 360–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1957)
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)
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)
van der Linden, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lartseva, A., Molnar, W.: Beyond terminologies: Using psychometrics to validate shared ontologies. Accepted for Publication in Applied Ontology (February 2012)
Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. Mis Quarterly 30(3), 611–642 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
van der Linden, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2012). Challenges of Identifying Communities with Shared Semantics in Enterprise Modeling. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Stirna, J. (eds) The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. PoEM 2012. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 134. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34549-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34549-4_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34548-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34549-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)