Conceptual modelling for information systems design is to a large extent about describing and prescribing the actions and interactions of agents in organizations. Thus, rules, regulations, organizational roles and other institutional aspects become key notions for conceptual modelling. While modellers may intuitively take these notions into account when creating conceptual models, it would be valuable also to take a more systematic and methodical approach to institutional aspects in the modelling activity. As a rst step to such a method, this paper proposes a set of guidelines that support a modeller in identifying classes in a domain model starting from an analysis of the institutional aspects of the domain. The guidelines build on an institutional ontology that describes key notions of institutions, including actors, rules, rights, contracts, and processes.
Conceptual modelling can be viewed as the activity of analysing, describing and representing some existing domain, typically an organizational one. The goal is to create a correct representation of the domain that can be used as the basis for the design of an information system supporting the activities of the organization. However, this view is often too limited in its focus on the purely descriptive aspects of conceptual modelling. When creating a model for an organization, it is generally required to take a future-oriented perspective, meaning that the model to be produced should not only be descriptive but also prescriptive. It should be able to specify how people are enabled, allowed and constrained to act and interact in the domain. For this purpose, the model needs to represent processes, rules and regulations that determine how people can interact. In other words, institutional concerns come to the foreground when designing prescriptive models for organizational domains.
Institutions have been de ned as \systems of established and prevalent
social rules that structure social interactions" [
Institutions are created and maintained through communication between
people. In line with a communicative view on institutions, John Searle [
Recently, researchers have investigated how an understanding of institutions
and communicative action can help in the design of conceptual models, [7{9].
The present paper has the same goal, as it intends to describe and characterize
how institutional aspects should inform conceptual modelling in the context of
information systems design. In order to achieve this goal, we propose an ontology
and a set of guidelines for designing a domain model based on institutional
aspects of a domain. Using general, top-level, ontologies to create domain models
is not a straight-forward process in the sense that there exists a simple
mapping between top-level concepts and domain speci c ones [
The Institutional Ontology The proposed institutional ontology is divided into three levels, see Figure 1. The bottom level (white in the gure) is the material level that represents material entities, such as human beings and other physical entities, as well as physical actions. The middle level (yellow in the gure) is the institutional facts level that represents institutional phenomena. The top level (blue in the gure) is the rule level that includes rules, as well as groupings of rules, that govern how entities are created and can interact at the institutional facts level. The ontology is depicted as a UML class diagram (multiplicities are 0..* if not otherwise indicated).
Institutions are used to enable, regulate, and constrain human interaction. In order to do so, rights are created and allocated among people, thereby setting up relationships of power and obligations between them. Rights are always relational involving at least two agents, e.g., an obligation of one agent to deliver some goods to another agent. Additionally, a right can include other entities that are the objects of the right, such as the goods in the above example.
One of the most well-known classi cations of rights is the one proposed by
[
Institutional entities are entities that are created by an institution through
communicative action. An institutional entity is either a right, an entity that can
have rights, an entity that is the object of a right, or a grouping of rights.
Institutional entities are often based on some other pre-existing entity. The institutional
entity is said to be grounded in that other entity [
Institutional Subject An institutional subject is an institutional entity that can have claims and is directly or indirectly grounded in a human being. Institutional Thing An institutional thing is an institutional entity that cannot have claims and is grounded in a physical entity or another institutional thing.
that cannot have claims and is grounded in informational content, e.g., a text or an image.
Institutional Right An institutional right is an institutional entity that represents a claim, a privilege or a power.
Institutional Contract An institutional contract is an institutional entity that groups together a number of rights, e.g., a sales contract.
Rules express how institutional entities can and should interact. An example of a rule is \the seller has to deliver goods to the buyer before the deadline". A rule includes institutional functions that specify the institutional entities to which the rule should be applied. Institutional functions are similar to roles as they are used for de ning bundles of rights that can be bestowed upon institutional entities. Examples of institutional functions are seller, buyer, and goods.
Institutional functions always come together, since their meanings are dependent on each other. For example, the meanings of the institutional functions tenant and landlord depend on each other, as the one can only be de ned by referring to the other. A tenant is someone who is obliged to pay rental to a landlord. A set of interdependent institutional functions together with a set of rules is called an institutional arrangement. Intuitively, an institutional arrangement can be viewed as a contract template.
Rules are closely related to rights, as they can be seen as generic rights. If the institutional functions in a rule are assigned to institutional entities, the rule will result in a right between these. For example, the rule above could result in "IKEA has to deliver the shelf Billy to John Doe".
Institutional entities are created by means of communicative actions that form institutional processes, i.e., an institutional process consists of a sequence of institutional actions. And these institutional actions are grounded in physical actions, e.g., displaying a badge or writing a signature on a piece of paper. 3
Guidelines for Institution Aware Conceptual Modelling While knowledge of and familiarity with the notions of the institutional ontology can help modellers in developing conceptual models that take institutional aspects into account, there is still a gap between the ontology and a domain model, i.e. a model for a speci c domain. In order to close this gap, we suggest a number of guidelines for applying the ontology. These guidelines are not to be viewed as de nite or exhaustive, but rather as preliminary examples of the kind of support required for building conceptual models that are aware of institutional aspects.
As a running example for illustrating the guidelines, we use the notion of
warrant in the context of law enforcement. As de ned by [
The starting point for the guidelines are the rules of the domain. In the running example, there are three main rules, one for each kind of warrant: Search warrant A Police O ce is allowed to search a Search Object belonging to a Subject Arrest warrant A Police O ce is authorized to arrest a Subject Bench warrant A Police O ce is obliged to make a Subject to appear at court
These rules include three institutional functions: Police O ce, Subject and Search Object. They also represent three di erent kinds of rights: a privilege, a duty and a power, respectively.
Guideline 1 Every Institutional Function becomes a class stereotyped as Institutional Entity
Institutional functions can be assigned to institutional entities, thereby bestowing a number of rights on them. Thus, institutional entities that have been assigned the same institutional function become similar to each other, in terms of the rights in which they are involved. And this similarity is a reason for categorizing them into a class of their own, meaning that to each institutional function there is a corresponding class in the domain model. This guideline may not be applicable to an institutional function that is dependent on another institutional function in the sense that if it is assigned to an entity, then the other institutional function must also be assigned to it. For example, an institutional function course participant can be dependent on another institutional function student, and in this case it may be su cient that only student becomes a class in the domain model. In the running example, this guideline will give rise to three classes stereotyped as Institutional Entity: Police O ce, Subject and Search Object. Guideline 2 Every Rule becomes a class stereotyped as Institutional Right
When the institutional functions in a rule are assigned to institutional entities, there will be a right between these entities. Thus, di erent assignments to institutional entities will give rise to a number of rights that are similar to each other, as they are all derived from the same rule. The similarity between these rights is a reason for grouping them into a class of their own, which corresponds to the rule. In the running example, this guideline will give rise to three classes: Search warrant, Arrest warrant, and Bench warrant.
Guideline 3 Every Institutional Arrangement becomes a class stereotyped as Institutional Contract
An institutional arrangement groups together a number of interdependent institutional functions as well as a number of rules that refer to them. These rules function as a contract template for the involved institutional functions. When the institutional functions of one institutional arrangement are assigned to institutional entities, the result will be a set of rights that are grouped together into a contract. In the running example, we assume that there exists a Warrant contract that can group together several warrants.
Guideline 4 Every Institutional Arrangement gives rise to associations between classes stereotyped as Institutional Entity and Institutional Contract An institutional arrangement groups a number of institutional functions. In the domain model, these will be captured through associations between the class corresponding to the institutional arrangement and the classes corresponding to the institutional functions.
Guideline 5 Every Rule gives rise to associations between classes stereotyped as Institutional Entity and Institutional Right
A rule includes a number of institutional functions. In the domain model, these will be captured through associations between the class corresponding to the rule and the classes corresponding to the institutional functions. Depending on cardinality constraints, these associations can sometimes be omitted as they can be derived from those of the institutional contract that contains the institutional rights.
Figure 2 depicts a fragment of the resulting domain model of the running
example. The domain model is created with the Institutional Ontology as point
of departure to identify relevant classes and associations.The guidelines described
above are used to aid the modeller in this process.
In this paper, we have proposed an institutional ontology as well as a set of
guidelines to use the ontology in order to support developers to design
conceptual models for institutional domains. The use of the guidelines are illustrated
through an application on law enforcement. Although the guidelines are aimed
to be used in conjunction with the proposed ontology, they are built on
general institutional concepts such as right, right assignment, contract, institutional
function, etc. Hence the proposed guidelines may also be used to explain how
to create domain models not only based on the Institutional ontology but also
other ontologies that focus on institutional concepts. Examples of similar
ontologies are the REA ontology, [