On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective

References

• Ågerfalk P (2010) Getting pragmatic. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 19: 251–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen GN, March ST (2006) A critical assessment of the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology for conceptual modeling. Sinha A, Venkataraman R, eds. Proc. 16th Annual Workshop Inform. Technologies Systems, Milwaukee, 25–30.Google Scholar
• Ambler SW (2002) Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for eXtreme Programming and the Unified Process (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Anderson AR, Belnap ND (1975) Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Belnap ND (1982) Display logic. J. Philos. Logic 11:375–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bera P, Burton-Jones A, Wand Y (2014) Research note—How semantics and pragmatics interact in understanding conceptual models. Inform. Systems Res. 25:401–419.Link, Google Scholar
• Bodart F, Patel A, Sim A, Weber R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modeling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inform. Systems Res. 12(4):383–405.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunge M (1977) Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Vol. 3 (D. Reidel, New York).Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A, Wand Y, Weber R (2009) Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 10:495–532.Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A, Clarke R, Lazarenko K, Weber R (2012) Is use of optional attributes and associations in conceptual modeling always problematic? Theory and empirical tests. George JF, ed. 34th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (AIS, Atlanta), 1–16.Google Scholar
• Calvanese D, Lenzerini M, Nardi D (1998) Description logics for conceptual data modeling. Chomicki J, Saake G, eds. Logics for Databases and Information Systems (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 229–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Church A (1936) An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. Amer. J. Math. 58:345–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currim F, Ram S (2006) Understanding the concept of “completeness” in frameworks for modeling cardinality constraints. Sinha A, Venkataraman R, eds. Proc. 16th Annual Workshop Inform. Technologies Systems, Milwaukee, 31–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currim F, Ram S (2012) Modeling spatial and temporal set-based constraints during conceptual database design. Inform. Systems Res. 23(1):109–128.Link, Google Scholar
• Dawson L, Swatman P (1999) The use of object-oriented models in requirements engineering: A field study. De P, DeGross JI, eds. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (AIS, Atlanta), 260–273.Google Scholar
• Dullea J, Song IY, Lamprou I (2003) An analysis of structural validity in entity-relationship modeling. Data Knowledge Engrg. 47:167–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunn CL, McCarthy WE (1997) The REA accounting model: Intellectual heritage and prospects for progress. J. Inform. Systems 11:31–51.Google Scholar
• Elmasri R, Navathe SB (2014) Fundamentals of Database Systems, 6th ed. (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Evermann J, Wand Y (2005a) Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: Fundamental constructs. Requirements Engrg. 10:146–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evermann J, Wand Y (2005b) Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 31:21–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fillotrani P, Franconi E, Tessaris S (2012) The ICOM 3.0 intelligent conceptual modelling tool and methodology. Semantic Web J. 3:293–306.Google Scholar
• Fonseca F (2007) The double role of ontologies in information science research. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 58:786–793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franconi E (2004) Using ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19:76–79.Google Scholar
• Gemino A, Wand Y (2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowledge Engrg. 55:301–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grädel E, Kolaitis PG, Vardi MY (1997) On the decision problem for two-variable first-order logic. Bull. Symbolic Logic 3:53–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Recker J (2011) Complementary use of modeling grammars. Scandinavian J. Inform. Systems 23:1–27.Google Scholar
• Greenspan SJ, Borgida A, Mylopoulos J (1986) A requirements modeling language and its logic. Inform. Systems 11:9–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregersen H, Jensen CS (1999) On the ontological expressiveness of temporal extensions to the entity-relationship model. Chen PP, Embley DW, Kouloumdjian J, Liddle SW, Roddick JF, eds. Advances in Conceptual Modeling, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 1727 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), 110–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hadar I, Soffer P, Kenzi K (2014) The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: An exploratory study. Requirements Engrg. 19:143–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halpin TA (1996) Business rules and object role modeling. Database Programming Design 9:66–72.Google Scholar
• Hartmann S (1998) On the consistency of int-cardinality constraints. Ling TW, Ram S, Lee ML, eds. Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER ’98), Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 1507 (Springer, Singapore), 211–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitzler P, Krotzsch M, Parsia B, Patel-Schneider PF, Rudolph S, eds. (2012) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, 2nd ed., http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/.Google Scholar
• Hofweber T (2014) Logic and ontology. Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2014 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/logic-ontology/.Google Scholar
• Jeusfeld MA, Jarke M, Mylopoulos J, eds. (2009) Metamodeling for Method Engineering (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Khatri V, Ram S, Snodgrass RT (2006) On augmenting database design-support environments to capture the geo-spatio-temporal data semantics. Inform. Systems 31:98–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemieux V, Limonad L (2011) What “good” looks like: Understanding records ontologically in the context of the global financial crisis. J. Inform. Sci. 37:29–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ludwig K (2007) Foundations of social reality in collective intentional behavior: Essays on John Searle’s social ontology. Tsohatzidis SL, ed. Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 49–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: Towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 35:756–778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mortimer M (1975) On languages with two variables. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 21:135–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mylopoulos J, Borgida A, Jarke M, Koubarakis M (1990) Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 8:325–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Opdahl AL, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software Systems Modeling 1:43–67.Google Scholar
• Pitts MG, Browne GJ (2004) Stopping behavior of systems analysts during information requirements elicitation. J. Management Inform. Systems 21:203–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ram S, Khatri V (2005) A comprehensive framework for modeling set-based business rules during conceptual database design. Inform. Systems 30:89–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Recker J, Indulska M, Rosemann M, Green P (2010) The ontological deficiencies of process-modeling in practice. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 19(5):501–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Recker J, Rosemann M, Green P, Indulska M (2011) Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Quart. 35:57–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reiter R (1978) On closed world data bases. Gallaire H, Minker J, eds. Logic and Data Bases (Plenum Press, New York), 119–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts KH (1990) Managing high reliability organizations. California Management Rev. 32:101–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Searle JR (1995) The Construction of Social Reality (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Sheth A (1997) Panel: Data semantics: What, where and how? Meersman R, Mark L, eds. Database Applications Semantics (Chapman & Hall, London), 601–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shoenfield JR (1967) Mathematical Logic (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). [Reprinted 2001 by Association for Symbolic Logic/A.K. Peters, Natick, MA.]Google Scholar
• Steel TB (1986) A minimal conceptual schema language for life, the universe, and everything. Steel TB, Meersman R, eds. Database Semantics (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 255–284.Google Scholar
• Sugumaran V, Storey VC (2006) The role of domain ontologies in database design: An ontology management and conceptual modeling environment. ACM Trans. Database Systems 31: 1064–1094.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thalheim B (1992) Fundamentals of cardinality constraints. Pernul G, Tjoa AM, eds. Proc. 11th Internat. Conf. Entity-Relationship Approach (ER ’92), Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 645 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), 7–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thalheim B (1993) Foundations of entity-relationship modeling. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 7:197–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turing AM (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc. London Math. Soc. (Ser. 2) 42:230–265.Google Scholar
• Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inform. Systems 3:217–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Inform. Systems J. 5:203–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wand Y, Storey VC, Weber R (1999) An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Systems 24:494–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wand Y, Woo C, Wand O (2008) Role and request based conceptual modeling—A methodology and a case tool. Li Q, Scappapietra S, Yu E, Olivé A, eds. Proc. CAiSE’08 Forum (Springer, Berlin), 77–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wastell DG (1996) The fetish of technique: Methodology as a social defence. Inform. Systems J. 6:25–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber R, Zhang Y (1996) An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inform. Systems J. 6(2):147–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yourdon E (1989) Modern Structured Analysis (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• zur Muehlen M, Recker J, Indulska M (2007) Sometimes less is more: Are process modeling languages overly complex? Taveter K, Gasevic D, eds. 11th Internat. IEEE EDOC Conf. Workshops (IEEE, Annapolis, MD), 197–204.Crossref, Google Scholar