=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2239/article_10
|storemode=property
|title=The Pattern of Patterns: What is a pattern in conceptual modeling?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2239/article_10.pdf
|volume=Vol-2239
|authors=Pooyan Ramezani Besheli
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/Besheli18
}}
==The Pattern of Patterns: What is a pattern in conceptual modeling?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2239/article_10.pdf
The Pattern of Patterns: What is a pattern in conceptual modeling?
Pooyan Ramezani Besheli
Department of Business Informatics and Operations Management,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Ghent University
Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
pooyan.ramezanibesheli@UGent.be
Abstract
It has been proven that using structured methods to represent the domain reduces human errors in the process of
creating models and also in the process of using them. Using modeling patterns is a proven structural method in
this regard. A pattern is a generalizable reusable solution to a design problem. Positive effects of using patterns
were demonstrated in several experimental studies and explained using theories. However, detailed knowledge
about how properties of patterns lead to increased performance in writing and reading conceptual models is
currently lacking. This paper proposes a theoretical framework to characterize the properties of ontology-driven
conceptual model patterns. The development of such framework is the first step in investigating the effects of
pattern properties and devising rules to compose patterns based on well-understood properties.
Keywords: Semantic Ontology, Visual Ontology, Conceptual Modeling Patterns, Ontology-Driven Models.
1! Introduction
In the Information Systems field, conceptual modeling is the activity that elicits and describes the knowledge
about a domain that a particular information system (for that domain) needs to incorporate (1). Business ontologies
and value models are particular kinds of conceptual models that are used in the early phases of information
system’s requirements engineering. A business ontology defines the concepts, relationships, and axioms that hold
for some business domain (e.g., transactions, business processes, business policy). Having a domain model
commit to a business ontology ensures precise semantics of the model elements. A value model is a conceptual
model of a value web, i.e., a network of business entities (e.g., enterprises, market segments) that exchange objects
of value within the frame of some ecosystem of interacting business models. As a domain model, the value model
thus describes how value is created and exchanged within the domain of the value web. From such value model,
requirements can be derived for how the information system of a focal actor in the value web should support and
monitor the creation and exchange of value by this actor [2,3].
Value modeling, business ontology engineering, and conceptual modeling in general are important in developing
or acquiring information systems as the quality of the system critically depends on the quality of the ontologies
and models underlying the system [4,5]. Assuring a high level of quality in conceptual modeling is, however,
challenging. The high level of domain abstraction needed to create high-quality conceptual models poses
difficulties which for some people are hard to overcome [4, 6-9]. It has been shown, for instance, that a modeler’s
field-independency (i.e., ability to think in abstract concepts, e.g., a value embedded in the value proposition to
economy passengers made by a low-cost carrier, versus the need for information on the particular frame of
reference, e.g., the current price of a flight next Sunday to Ibiza from Amsterdam by Ryanair) has a strong impact
on the ability to create high-quality conceptual models [10].
One way to reduce individual variety (e.g., caused by traits like field-(in)dependency) in creating conceptual
models is using model patterns. It has been proven that using structured methods to represent the domain reduces
human errors in the process of creating models and also in the process of using them. Using modeling patterns is
a proven structural method in this regard [11]. A pattern is a generalizable reusable solution to a design problem.
The main purpose of using modeling patterns is reusing previous solutions in order to help modelers to represent
1
frequently recurring problems1 in a more formalized way and also to assist in model user’s understanding by
making models more recognizable [11].
It has been proven that using patterns in the modeling process results in benefits for modelers [1, 12, 13] and
model users [13-15]. Positive effects of using patterns were demonstrated in several experimental studies and
explained using theories [12, 14]. However, detailed knowledge about how properties of patterns lead to increased
performance in writing and reading conceptual models is currently lacking. Commonly, patterns are designed
empirically based on (supposedly best) practice, but if they can be characterized in terms of their properties, we
will be able to investigate which properties lead to certain effects under certain circumstances, which will provide
knowledge to develop better patterns. If we have a property catalog of conceptual model patterns, we are able to
investigate local effects of properties and by combining them we are able to assess their global effects. Knowing
the specific effects of the pattern properties provides a possibility to further develop existing patterns by
reconfiguring their properties.
This paper proposes a theoretical framework to characterize the properties of conceptual model patterns. The
development of such framework is the first step in investigating the effects of pattern properties and devising rules
to compose patterns based on well-understood properties.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework for characterizing properties of conceptual modeling patterns
2! Discussion
The theoretical framework represents different levels of elements regarding their rigidity and the level of the
abstraction. This framework represents elements from the fundamental theories underpinning the modeling
patterns as the highest level of abstraction and less rigid types of elements including the final software application
of the solution as lower levels of abstraction. The theoretical framework is presented in Figure 1. The next sections
explain the different levels of this framework and the elements of each level.
1
Problem in this context needs to be understood as the problem of representing some situation of reality, i.e.,
not the problem is represented but the representing is the problem.
2
2.1! Foundational theory
Any model represents things based on a singular way of looking at reality. The perspective of the modeling pattern
can be defined in a school of philosophy and a school of psychology. Clarifying the philosophical assumptions
which fundamentally describe the core ontology of the pattern, is a crucial and very fundamental element of the
pattern [17-19]. Also, the philosophical school of the pattern accordingly specifies the psychological school of
the pattern Figure 2. foundational elements of the pattern. The relation between philosophical and psychological
assumptions is very important in the way of describing reality. In other words, the assumption about the aspects
the humanity should be based on a unique perspective of the reality. By this clarification we objectively address
all theoretical assumptions that are involved in practice (product) and it provides us a possibility to practically
evaluate the performance of those abstracts and subjective theories.
Figure 2. foundational elements of the pattern
2.2! Core Ontology:
This level represents types of ontologies that are involved in the pattern Figure 3. involving elements of the pattern
from basis to the core ontology level and their relationsOntology represent a taxonomy of basic concepts related
to the given theoretical assumption (philosophical or psychological). Formal ontology is concerned with the
systematic development of axiomatic theories describing forms, modes, and views of being of the world at
different levels of abstraction and granularity. Formal ontology combines the methods of mathematical logic with
principles of philosophy, but also with the methods of artificial intelligence and linguistics. At the most general
level of abstraction, formal ontology is concerned with those categories that apply to every area of the world [17,
20].
Semantic ontology:
Semantic ontology defines concepts in high level of generality that provide a semantic basis for defining domain
concepts. Also, it represents rules to define the relations of those concepts and the set of axioms formulated about
their vocabulary. This type of ontology may differ with respect to theoretical assumptions and accordingly
categories and relations. If two ontologies are based on similar philosophical assumptions, then they have similar
categories and relations [20].
visual ontology:
Visual ontology defines relations and notations of defined concepts. Based on the theoretical foundation of the
visual ontology, this type of ontology describes the particular way of representing concepts in the model. This
ontology represents visual aspects of constructs by explaining the cognitive quality of proposed notations. Visual
representations are effective as they are related to the capabilities of the powerful and highly parallel human visual
system [21-23]. Regarding the structure of the designed model, a visual ontology may also provide rules for
relations between concepts.
The semantic ontology and visual ontology of the pattern constitute the core ontologies of the pattern. Patterns
may combine several ontologies as long as they are based on unique, non-conflicting theoretical foundations.
3
2.3! Domain ontology:
The domain ontology of the pattern defines specific concepts of the domain and their relations and notations based
on the core ontologies of the pattern Figure 4. involving elements of the pattern from basis to the domain ontology
level and their relations. Domain ontology recognizes the concepts of the domain and the relations between them
and relevant notation for the specific domain [24, 25]. Any pattern can use different combinations and
arrangements of elements described in the domain ontology. Any elements of the domain (concepts, relations,
notations) are expressed based on one or more semantic and visual ontologies which are themselves related to a
philosophical assumption and a psychological assumption. Any pattern uses a specific combination considering
the type of the problem it is addressing.
A domain ontology assumed as a formal knowledge base is given by an explicit specification of a
conceptualization. This specification must be articulated in a formal language, and there is a variety of formal
Figure 3. involving elements of the pattern from basis to the core ontology level and their relations
specification systems. We can consider this level as formal representation of the core ontologies Table 1.
Table 1, Relation between core and domain ontology type
Core Ontology type Domain Ontology element
!! Concept:
Semantic !! represents things in a specific domain based on the semantic ontology of the
pattern.
!! Relation:
!! defined based on the semantic ontology of the pattern, although the visual
Semantic-Visual
ontology may modify or validate the relation based on the way of
understanding (cognition) and interpreting by modelers or model users.
!! Notation:
!! based on the visual ontology that concludes some visual theories such as the
Visual
physics of the notation and also the structure of the design. Visual elements of
a pattern are significant to make the pattern more understandable [23].
Figure 4. involving elements of the pattern from basis to the domain ontology level and their relations
2.4! Formal Methodology:
This level is less abstract and more rigid than previous levels. In this level, based on the problem in a domain, a
pattern proposes appropriate concepts and their relations and notations. The pattern defines which concepts of the
domain ontology are involved, how these concepts are structured to design a reusable solution that addresses the
problem, and which notation should be used for the concepts and the structure of relations between the concepts.
Here, at this level, the pattern gets created and gets formal Figure 5. involving elements of the pattern from basis
to the formal methodology level and their relations. Patterns have a logical method to represent that combination
based on the type of the task in demand.
4
So, any pattern uses concepts of a specific domain which are defined semantically by a semantic ontology that is
itself based on a philosophical assumption [24-26]. The relation between these concepts are defined by the
particular combination of two core ontologies: the semantic ontology –the same one used as for definition domain
ontology concepts – and the visual ontology. The visual ontology is based on a psychological assumption that is
defined in a higher level. This combination recognizes the relation between concepts based on the problem
domain. Also, a pattern uses notations to design the model based on the visual ontology that is based on a
psychological assumption.
The unique way of uniting mentioned elements to create a reusable solution to address a type-problem in a domain
is what we define as the Pattern.
Figure 5. involving elements of the pattern from basis to the formal methodology level and their relations
2.5! Application:
The structure of patterns could be formalized and be delivered in some tools that facilitate the process of using
patterns. Basically, this is the final implementation of the pattern and it has impact on the final performance of
the using patterns. This part is the most rigid element of the patterns and can be evaluated by technical means
only. We represent this part in order to depict the whole picture of patterns because same patterns can perform
differently regarding their way of implementation Figure 6.
5
Figure 6. involving elements of the pattern from basis to the application level and their relations
3! Conclusion
The represented theoretical framework shows elements and the connection of all involved elements of the pattern.
We performed an ontological approach to describe an ontology-driven method. Many attempts have been done to
create ontological artifacts but still we could not integrate them properly and use the benefit of the integral
reinforcement. Using unified view to creating ontology-driven models will provide us to overcome the mentioned
problem. On the other hand, we can evaluate the effects of any elements explicitly and also assess the interactional
effects of the involving elements on each other and the final product. The development of such framework is the
first step in investigating the effects of pattern properties and devising rules to compose patterns based on well-
understood properties.
4! Acknowledgement
This paper has benefited from discussions with professor Geert Poels, head of the business informatics research
group of Ghent University.
6
5! References
1.! Bera, Palash, and Geert Poels. "How do we acquire understanding of conceptual models?." 14th Annual
Symposium of the AIS Special Interest Group on Systems Analysis and Design. Virginia Commonwealth
University, School of Business, Dept. Information Systems, 2015.
2.! Gordijn, Jaap. "A design methodology for modeling trustworthy value
webs." International Journal of electronic commerce 9.3 (2005): 31-48.
3.! Wand, Yair, and Ron Weber. "Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling—
a research agenda." Information Systems Research 13.4 (2002): 363-376.
4.! Olivé, Antoni, and Jordi Cabot. "A research agenda for conceptual schema-centric
development." Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2007. 319-334.
5.! Nelson, H. James, et al. "A conceptual modeling quality framework." Software Quality Journal 20.1
(2012): 201-228.
6.! Moody, Daniel L., et al. "Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual
model quality framework." Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software engineering.
IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
7.! Moody, Daniel L. "Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models:
current state and future directions." Data & Knowledge Engineering 55.3 (2005): 243-276.
8.! Lindland, Odd Ivar, Guttorm Sindre, and Arne Solvberg. "Understanding quality in conceptual
modeling." IEEE software 11.2 (1994): 42-49.
9.! Wand, Yair, and Ron Weber. "Toward a theory of the deep structure of information systems." ICIS. 1990
10.! Claes, Jan, et al. "The structured process modeling theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how
modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling." Information Systems Frontiers 17.6
(2015): 1401-1425.
11.! Purao S, Storey VC, Han T (2003) Improving Analysis Pattern Reuse in Conceptual Design: Augmenting
Automated Processes with Supervised Learning. Information Systems Research 14 269-290.
12.! Batra, Dinesh. "Conceptual data modeling patterns: Representation and validation." Journal of Database
Management 16.2 (2008).
13.! Batra D, Wang TW (2004) A research agenda for evaluating and improving data modeling patterns. In:
Batra D, Parsons J, Ramesh V (Eds.) Proc. 3rd Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and
Design. St. John’s, Canada.
14.! Poels, Geert, et al. User comprehension of accounting information structures: An empirical test of the
REA model. No. 04/254. Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, 2004.
15.! Gerard GJ (2005) The REA Pattern, Knowledge Structures, and Conceptual Modeling Performance.
Journal of Information Systems 19 57-77.
16.! Krogstie, John, Guttorm Sindre, and Håvard Jørgensen. "Process models representing knowledge for
action: a revised quality framework." European Journal of Information Systems 15.1 (2006): 91-102.
17.! Herre, Heinrich. "General Formal Ontology (GFO): A foundational ontology for conceptual
modelling." Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications. Springer Netherlands, 2010.
297-345.
18.! Vessey, Iris. "Cognitive fit: A theory!based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature." Decision
Sciences 22.2 (1991): 219-240.
19.! Rowley, Jennifer E., and Richard J. Hartley, eds. Organizing knowledge: an introduction to managing
access to information. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008.
20.! Guizzardi, Giancarlo. Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. CTIT, Centre for
Telematics and Information Technology, 2005.
21.! Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman. "Construal-level theory of psychological distance." Psychological
review 117.2 (2010): 440.
22.! Petrusel, Razvan, Jan Mendling, and Hajo A. Reijers. "How visual cognition influences process model
comprehension." Decision Support Systems 96 (2017): 1-16.
23.! Moody, Daniel. "The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations
in software engineering." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35.6 (2009): 756-779.
24.! Gruber, Thomas R. "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications." Knowledge
acquisition 5.2 (1993): 199-220.
25.! McCarthy, William E. "The REA accounting model: A generalized framework for accounting systems
in a shared data environment." Accounting Review (1982): 554-578.
26.! Gailly, Frederik, Guido Geerts, and Geert Poels. "Ontological Reengineering of the REA-EO using
UFO." International Workshop on Ontology-Driven Software Engineering, OOPSLA. 2009.
7