Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support

International Conference on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design

BPMDS 2014, EMMSAD 2014: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling pp 317–331Cite as

Category Structure of Language Types Common to Conceptual Modeling Languages

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 175))

Abstract

We investigate the category structure of categories common to conceptual modeling languages (i.e., the types used by languages such as actor, process, goal, or restriction) to study whether they more closely approximate a discrete or graded category. We do this for three distinct groups: students, beginning modelers and experienced modelers. We find that overall most categories exhibit more of a graded structure, with experienced modelers displaying this even more strongly than the other groups. We discuss the consequences of these results for (conceptual) modeling in general, and in particular argue that when a model contains graded categories, it should follow that the (conceptual) validity of instantiations of it should be judged in a graded fashion as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelson, B.: Comparing natural and abstract categories: A case study from computer science. Cognitive Science 9(4), 417–430 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Furst, F., Kuntz, P., Trichet, F.: Conceptual and Lexical Prototypicality Gradients Dedicated to Ontology Personalisation. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1423–1439. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L.M.: The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. The American Journal of Psychology, 389–410 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barr, R., Caplan, L.: Category representations and their implications for category structure. Memory & Cognition 15(5), 397–418 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Meyer, T.: Modelling object typicality in description logics. In: Nicholson, A., Li, X. (eds.) AI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5866, pp. 506–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cai, Y., Leung, H.-F.: A formal model of fuzzy ontology with property hierarchy and object membership. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 69–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358–380 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Diesendruck, G., Gelman, S.: Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: Evidence for an essentialist account of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6(2), 338–346 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Estes, Z.: Domain differences in the structure of artifactual and natural categories. Memory & Cognition 31(2), 199–214 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Estes, Z.: Confidence and gradedness in semantic categorization: Definitely somewhat artifactual, maybe absolutely natural. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(6), 1041–1047 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Freund, M., Descles, J.P., Pascu, A., Cardot, J.: Typicality, contextual inferences and object determination logic. In: FLAIRS, vol. 4, pp. 491–495 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: Reasoning about typicality in preferential description logics. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 192–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hampton, J.A.: Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition 65(2-3), 137–165 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hampton, J.A., Dubois, D., Yeh, W.: Effects of classification context on categorization in natural categories. Memory & Cognition 34(7), 1431–1443 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing language: conceptualisation processes across ict-supported organisations. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kalish, C.W.: Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Memory & Cognition 23(3), 335–353 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Persson, A., Stirna, J.: Why enterprise modelling? an explorative study into current practice. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 465–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews 28(4), 495–528 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosch, E.: Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 328–350 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B.: Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4), 573–605 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., Storms, G.: Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods 36, 506–515 (2004), doi:10.3758/BF03195597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sowa, J.: The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning. In: Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 231–263. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wilmont, I., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Hengeveld, S.: Abstract reasoning in collaborative modeling. In: HICSS, pp. 170–179 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yeung, C.-M.A., Leung, H.-F.: Ontology with likeliness and typicality of objects in concepts. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 98–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeung, C.A., Leung, H.F.: A formal model of ontology for handling fuzzy membership and typicality of instances. Comput. J. 53(3), 316–341 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Dirk van der Linden & Henderik A. Proper

  2. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Dirk van der Linden & Henderik A. Proper

  3. EE-Team, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Dirk van der Linden & Henderik A. Proper

Authors
  1. Dirk van der Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henderik A. Proper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DSV Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ilia Bider

  2. Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg

    Khaled Gaaloul

  3. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælandsvei 7-9, N-7030, Trondheim, Norway

    John Krogstie

  4. Université de Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  5. Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luexemboug

    Henderik A. Proper

  6. Munich University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  7. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Pnina Soffer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

van der Linden, D., Proper, H.A. (2014). Category Structure of Language Types Common to Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Bider, I., et al. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2014 2014. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 175. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_22

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43744-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43745-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation