=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3155/short4
|storemode=property
|title=A Preliminary Comment on Amaral's, Sales's, and Guizzardi's "Towards an Ontology Network in Finance and Economics" (short paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3155/short4.pdf
|volume=Vol-3155
|authors=Ivars Blums,Hans Weigand
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/BlumsW22
}}
==A Preliminary Comment on Amaral's, Sales's, and Guizzardi's "Towards an Ontology Network in Finance and Economics" (short paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3155/short4.pdf
A Preliminary Comment on Amaral’s, Sales’s, and Guizzardi’s
“Towards an Ontology Network in Finance and Economics”
Ivars BLUMS 1, and Hans WEIGAND 2
1
SIA ODO, Riga, Latvia
2
University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Abstract
The concepts of Ontology Network in Finance and Economics OntoFINE and possible
additional concepts such as Economic Resource and Economic Relator are discussed.
Keywords 1
UFO, OntoUML, OntoFINE, COFRIS, Economic Resources
1. Introduction
In a recent paper [1] the leading developers of Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) state that an
integrated ontological framework can improve ontology-based applications in finance and economics,
as well as improve communication among the different actors in these sectors. The framework called
OntoFINE [1] is being built incrementally and as a network, grounded in the Unified Foundational
Ontology (UFO) [12].
We agree that OntoFINE, powered by the OntoUML tool [13] can play a fundamental role in
building applied ontologies in financial reporting and accounting such as COFRIS – a core ontology
for financial reporting information systems [7-11], but have several comments and suggestions.
OntoFINE investigates the conceptual foundations of the following concepts in finance and
economics - Money, Trust, Value, Risk, and Economic Exchanges (MTVRE core), see Fig.1. Three
reasons for choosing these subdomains are listed in [1]. Firstly, because of their ubiquitous presence in
the realm of finance and economics. Secondly, because they are related to recent challenges faced by
the financial industry, which involve new forms of money and trust, as well as new business models for
digital exchanges. And finally, because they have been little explored by other initiatives in the same
direction.
Figure 1: OntoFINE: the network view [1]
Of course, all these are important and evolving concepts in the realm including financial reporting. The
question is how fundamental, complete, and related to other UFO subontologies these concepts are. To
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Value Modelling and Business Ontologies (VMBO 2022), held in conjunction with the 34th
International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2022), June 06–10, 2022, Leuven, Belgium
EMAIL: ivars.blums@odo.lv (I. Blums); h.weigand@tilburguniversity.edu (H. Weigand)
ORCID: 0000-0003-3405-0754 (I. Blums); 0000-0002-6035-9045 (H. Weigand)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
address recent challenges and to explain the new forms is a good tactic to attain the interest in the
domain, but from a strategic point of view, we also need to understand the existing theories and forms.
Depicted OntoFINE subdomains are social and perhaps fundamentally social, thus grounded in
UFO-C [16] which probably needs some refreshment, e.g., the inclusion of reciprocity, trust, and
lifecycle concepts. Consequently, the OntoUML tool deserves the inclusion of agent, action, and other
social stereotypes and patterns. The core concepts should have social and possibly legal counterparts
and economic substance. In the ontologies of economics, most concepts get the adjective economic,
which means that these entities are mediated or measured by money. This distinctive feature must be
depicted in OntoFINE concepts.
An important issue is which core subdomains to include in OntoFINE and under what priority. Of
course, modern economics cannot be operational without money; exchange and valuation often require
the establishment of trust and risk assessment, but leading economists reviewed e.g., in [6] and
accounting ontologists [14, 21, 22] list scarce and useful Economic Resources; mutual-gain Economic
Production and Exchanges; and Economic Agents - going concerns of bounded rationality, as main
economic concepts (REA core).
In the financial and economic subdomains often the substance of economic phenomena and their
legal form are the same [4]. This requires the OntoFINE to have grounds in UFO-L. The REA concepts
should correspond with e.g., Property and Personal Rights and Legal Liability Law; Contract Law;
Enterprise and Consumer Law subdomains in UFO-L.
2. Some Comments about Economic Exchange Subontology of OntoFINE
We support the thesis of leading economists that capitalism is a social order that is organized, structured,
and maintained by and through production that is oriented for exchange toward profit in the form of
money, cf. [27]. Within COFRIS we have developed our ontology of economic exchanges including
production, validated by applying to financial reporting standards and comparison with other UFO
grounded economic exchange ontologies [7]2.
The core assumption made by the Action Theory of Exchanges (ATE) and OntoFINE COEX
subontology [1, 19] is that “in any economic transaction, the “object” of the transaction is a pair of
actions to be performed by the relevant agents involved in it”.
It is obvious that an exchange is an agreed3 interaction of agents. However, referring to valued
economic resources of exchanging agents – transferred and affected – is unavoidable when we need to
describe the meaning, goal, and preferences of economic exchange. Neither agreed economic resource
nor agreed value is depicted in COEX. We have several comments in this context.
Firstly, the “object” of exchange is not a pair of any actions, e.g., sports competition or executed for
fun (a “valid” exchange example in ATE). Economic exchange assumes reciprocal legitimate transfers
of economic resources (or assumptions of obligations) held by the exchange parties. Transfer of goods
consists of a transfer of property rights and additional services. Transfer of services (standardly used in
[4] and even in [29]) consists of the transfer of service rights4 [29] and the performance of the service.
The “unifying” [19] transfer of rights action type is typically omitted when specifying a transfer (see
the dashed box in Fig.2).
Secondly, economics is typically less concerned with actions (which in some situations are even not
observable) but mainly about action (or abstaining) results in the situations of the transacting parties. A
transfer leads to a decrease in resources for one party and an increase for the other. Services affect the
resources of the receiving party [24, 25]. The affecting of resources (in contrast with actions) is claimed
and accepted by the other party, e.g., the repaired house, the haircut. Affecting means that there is a
persisting resource, controlled or received, that is transformed, presumably to increase its value and
control [25]. If the service is not directly affecting a specific resource but supports some activity, then
the affected resource is a cash-generating unit, or a business itself – also a resource.
Thirdly, resource transfers are made in consideration of something received as an equivalent.
Consideration is either intermediate such as conditional or unconditional claim or final in the form of
2
see the OntoUML diagram at https://odo.lv/ftp/COFRIS).
3
In contrast with services that may be not agreed upon, e.g., provided as a gift or a rescue
4
In capitalism to own production, an agent must own the resources used in production – the raw materials and labor-power, cf. [27].
counterpart resources. It means that together with resource transfers and recognition, the value transfers
and measurements of (cost and revenue) as mentioned cf. in [29] happen. Economic Exchanges must
have economic substance, i.e., change the resources and/or value of the parties. Economic exchanges
need to pursue balanced reciprocity and account for uncertainty in valuation [28].
3. Towards Resource as a Core Element for OntoFINE
Economics studies individual choices in relation to the efficient allocation of scarce resources [27]. In
the light of the property rights theory, we find economic resources and their control as the most
important concept that has not been included in OntoFINE and other UFO subontologies. Previously
UFO provided research on resources analyzing ArchiMate constructs [15] and software development
[20]. Afterward, only episodic mentions occurred, e.g., where resources were declared as objects an
agent needs to achieve his/her goal, and the further analysis was postponed [23]. Similarly, several other
ontologies such as UFO-S [17] and UFO-L [18] occurred without introducing economic resources or
property rights. Money that participates in the actions depicted by these ontologies is not a service but
an economic resource. The analysis of money in OntoFINE ROME could start with being grounded in
the economic resource concept. The OntoFINE ROME includes the control concept, but in limited form
for money objects.
Figure 2: OntoUML diagram of Resource Rights and Control
Following leading economists referenced in [9] and accounting ontologists [14], we regard economic
resources as rights among economic agents, and following mutual understanding in a network of
conceptual frameworks for financial and national reporting and accounting [2-5] we generally accept
an economic resource defined as “a [property or contractual5] right that has potential to produce
economic benefits”. In discussions with UFO ontologists, COFRIS reviewers and users we have found
that their perception of economic resource is as an [physical] object but not as a social relationship. In
this short comment, we cannot provide a complete ontological account for economic resources in
5
rights that correspond to an obligation of another party, also called in personam rights in contrast with in rem rights
financial reporting, which is planned for a future paper and is preliminary developed in our previous
work [7-11]. However, to attain the attention of OntoFINE developers and for discussion, we continue
with some background and a preliminary fragment of economic resource and relator concept depiction
in OntoUML.
The thought that economic resources are scarce and are valued personal and property rights were
raised in the late 19th century by John Commons which led to the concept of a bundle of rights between
economic agents over objects or actions further developed by Hohfeld, Coase, and many others. This
concept is now increasingly represented by sharing economy whereby owners provide short-term use
rights while keeping the remaining property rights bundle.
Per Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Rights are (1) entitlements (not) to perform certain
actions, or (not) to be in certain states; and/or (2) entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions
or (not) be in certain states” 6.
Resources thus are not physical objects nor services but property rights of a holder to perform over
objects or contractual rights of a creditor to receive objects or services of a specified type from a debtor
(see Fig.2). Economic Resources may have the receipt disposition to produce economic benefits by
using the resources, possibly in combination with other resources, in the allowed activities. Benefits are
obtained either by fulfillment of the obligations by debtors, by producing (improving) resources, or by
selling to the debtors. Another way of obtaining benefits is by manifestation of the settlement disposition
of obligations to the creditors.
To produce, an economic agent needs not only rights but also the control of economic resources.
The author of Theory of accounting measurement [21], Yuji Ijiri defines an economic exchange as an
action whereby an entity7 forgoes [or obtains obligation to forgo] control over some economic resources
in order to obtain [or to forgo obligation to forgo] control over other economic resources, with a goal
of increasing the monetary resources under the enterprise's control.
Control over resources, including committed and receivable resources, here means discretionary
power to utilize or dispose of the resources that are under the positive (i.e., are rights) or under the
negative control (resp. obligations) of the entity. An entity is defined as an identifiable unit empowered
to control resources, and finally, resources are defined as scarce objects having a utility that the entity
intends to place under its control. Scarcity and utility of resources are measured at a historical and
present monetary value of respectively past and expected resource participation in an exchange.
Related concepts of assets (liabilities and equity) are resources (resp., obligations) under positive
(resp., negative) control recognized by the enterprise. An enterprise controls an economic resource if it
has the present ability to direct the use of the economic resource (resource control) and obtain the
economic benefits that may flow from it (benefit control). Control includes the present ability to prevent
other parties from directing the use of the economic resource and from obtaining the economic benefits
that may flow from it [4]. Control, in this case, is determined per standards’ regulated recognition and
measurement criteria, and Control generally excludes conditional commitments and executory contracts
as resources. For example, patents and trademarks can be assets, but skilled workforce (and the training
that has created those skills) not [2, standard IAS 38].
Similarly, as for trust, an agent controls resources if for his intentions the resource usage and the
agent have capabilities to use it in her activities and obtain the economic benefits from the process that
he believes in grounded in previous experience – dispositional beliefs.
In short, the accounting and financial domain interprets economic resources as property rights or
contractual rights that have the potential to produce economic benefits – resources and services of
greater than historical value – generally via production and exchanges. Control includes rights but also
considers the functionality of underlying resources, the enterprise’s capabilities, its legal conditions of
resource usage (e.g., sanctions or tax allowances), risks, goals, and plans.
We agree with OntoFINE that value, trust, and risk are not inherent in some object but in social
relationships and experience. In an economic context, all these are characteristics or preconditions of
economic resource control. To control something (a property object) or someone (a contractual debtor)
in an economic system an agent as a holder (or even creditor) must have the corresponding contractual
or property rights. Let us take the ontological commitments for, e.g., Trust from the OntoFINE ROT
6
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/rights
7
We will refer to reporting entity as an economic agent or enterprise in this paper
[1] as an example and find the similarities and differences (depicted in bold) with Economic Resource
Control for a deeper understanding of the Economic Resource concept (see Table 1). At this stage we
mainly show that there are patterns of regularity that are common to these two phenomena, leaving a
further analysis of how the two are related for future work.
Table 1
Comparison of ontological commitments for Trust and Economic Resource Control
Trust [1, page 7] Economic Resource Control
Trust/Control is relative to a goal.
An agent, the trustor, trusts: An economic agent, the controller, controls:
- someone or - someone (based on contractual right or law) or
- something, the trustee, - something (based on property right) - the controllee,
only relative to a goal, for the achievement of only relative to a goal, for the achievement of which she counts
which she counts upon the trustee. upon the controllee and the economic benefits of controlee's
behavior.
Trust/Control is a complex mental state
of a trustor regarding a trustee and her behavior. of a controller regarding a controllee and her behavior and the
economic benefits of the behavior.
Trust/Control is composed of:
(i) a trustor’s intention, whose propositional (i) a controller’s intention, whose propositional content is a goal of
content is a goal of the trustor; the controller;
(ii) the belief that the trustee has the capability (ii-a) the belief that the controllee has the capability to perform the
to perform the desired action or exhibit the desired action or exhibit the desired behavior;
desired behavior; and (ii-a) controller's rights to control the desired action or behavior and
the resulting economic benefits, and exclude other agents from
controlling;
(ii-b) controller's belief in the capability to control the controllee;
(ii-d) the belief that action or behavior will produce economic
benefits to the controller; and
(iii) the belief that the trustee’s vulnerabilities will (iii) the belief that the controllee’s vulnerabilities will not prevent her
not prevent her from performing the desired from performing the desired action or exhibiting the desired behavior
action or exhibiting the desired behavior. and producing economic benefits.
When the role of trustee is played by an agent, When the economic resource is to be received by the debtor, control
trust is also composed of the trustor’s belief that is also composed of the creditor's belief that the debtor has the
the trustee has the intention to exhibit the obligation and intention to exhibit the desired behavior.
desired behavior.
The trustor/controller is necessarily an “intentional entity”.
The trustor is a cognitive agent, an agent The controller is an economic agent, an agent of bounded rationality
endowed with goals and beliefs. endowed with economic goals and preferences.
The trustee/controlee is not necessarily a cognitive system.
The trustee is an entity capable of having a The controllee is an entity capable of having a (potentially positive)
(hopefully positive) impact on the goal of the impact on a goal of the controller by the economic benefits of its
trustor by the outcome of its behavior. A trustee behavior. A controllee may be a person, an animal, a car, a vaccine,
may be a person, an animal, a car, a vaccine, etc. etc.
Trust/Control is context-dependent.
The trustor may trust the trustee for a given goal Control is context-dependent. The controller may control controllee
in a given context, but not do so for the same goal for a given goal in a given context, but not do so for the same goal in
in a different context. a different context.
Institution-based trust depends on the social system trustee.
Institution-based trust depends on the social Economic Resources depict rights to produce economic benefits in
system trustee. an economic system context by a generic agent. Assets are
Economic Resources under the control of a particular agent.
it implies risk
By trusting, the trustor accepts to become By obtaining control, the controller accepts to become vulnerable to
vulnerable to the trustee in terms of potential the controllee in terms of potential failure of the expected behavior
failure of the expected behavior and result, as the and result, as the controllee may not exhibit the expected behavior,
or it may not have the desired economic benefits.
trustee may not exhibit the expected behavior, or
it may not have the desired result.
Trust/Control can be quantified
Trust can be quantified Economic resources are quantified and valuated
4. Social, Reciprocity, and Economic Relators for Economic System
To sketch a conceptualization of the economic system we need to regard the relator concept of the
UFO. In UFO Extrinsic Aspects are reified relationships. A distinction is made between formal relations
holding between two or more entities “directly without any further intervening individual” [12: 236],
and material relations, which require the existence of an intervening individual – a specific construct,
called a relator. A Relator mediates the mutual relationships of two or more concrete individuals.
Extrinsic aspects can also be reified one-sided relationships.
The UFO-C is an ontology of social entities (both endurants and events) where the main distinctions
are between agents and non-agentive objects [16]. An agent is a substantial that creates actions,
perceives events, and to which we can ascribe mental states (intentional modes). Agents can be physical
(e.g., a person) or social (e.g., an organization). A human agent is a type of physical agent. An object,
on the other hand, is a substantial unable to perceive events or to have intentional modes. Objects can
also be further categorized into physical (e.g., a book, a car) and social objects (e.g., money, language).
Intentional modes can be social modes or mental modes. Intentions (or internal commitments) are
mental modes that represent an internal commitment of the agent to act towards that will. They cause
the agent to perform actions. The propositional content of an intention is a goal.
Besides internal commitments (intentions), there are also social commitments. A social commitment
is a commitment of an agent (a committer) towards another agent (a claimer). As an externally
dependent mode, a social commitment inheres in the committer and is externally dependent on the
claimer. The social commitments necessarily cause the creation of an internal commitment in the
committer. Also, associated with this internal commitment, a social claim of the claimer towards the
committer is created. Commitments and claims always form a pair that refers to unique propositional
content, and a social relator is an example of a relator composed of associated commitments/claims, see
Fig.3. A closed commitment is a commitment that is based on an Action Universal (Plan). The closed
commitment is fulfilled by the agent only if the agent satisfies the commitment goal by executing an
action which is an instance of the plan. The social relator concept has been further employed in
developing a legal relator in UFO-L [18] that associates different kinds of correlative obligations/rights
of two agents.
Figure 3: OntoUML diagram of UFO Social Relator. Adapted from [17]
Finally, actions are intentional events, i.e., they have the specific purpose of satisfying some intention
(e.g., a business process, a communicative act). As events, actions can be atomic or complex.
Applying the social concepts of UFO-C for economical phenomena we find that in a financial
environment Economic Commitments of resource transfers and service provisions are established with
the goal of satisfying Economic Claims for resource receiving and affecting [25]. Economic
commitments are consensual, complex, and closed. They are time interval referring (aka appointments)
and can be correlative, conditional, and reciprocal. Correlative (and equivalent) means that one party’s
commitment and its fulfillment is a counterparty’s claim and its fulfillment and vice versa. Consensual
means that the commitment and the claim and their fulfillment are agreed upon and immutable upon a
new agreement, among parties.
Most relator examples in UFO literature, such as marriage or employment, as well as service
agreements, are modeling relations of deontic relations, particularly reciprocity. As Castelfranchi
notices in [26]: “one should consider that normally in cooperation, in social exchange, in contracts, in
organizations social commitments are reciprocal”.
An exchange plan or contract is a reciprocity relator in requiring the exchange of performance of
each party in consideration of the other.
A valued performance obligation of a party is a reciprocity relator in requiring accrual of
consideration value from the counterparty in exchange for transferring resources (assuming obligations)
and providing services.
An offering and a valued economic resource are reciprocity relators (but subject to greater
uncertainty) mediating an enterprise’s potential but constructive right to receive economic benefits of a
fair value from some economic system (market, target community) member in exchange for transferring
resources.
Figure 4: A verified OntoUML diagram of (a) Reciprocity Relator and (b) Economic Relator.
For modeling exchange contracts, economic resources, and obligations, we first introduce a pattern of
reciprocal commitments and reciprocal claims and their formation and execution lifecycle [7]. A
reciprocity relator, which is an agreement between two parties comprising commitments of each party
in consideration of the other, has been used before in UFO literature for modeling service offerings and
agreements [17]. Our pattern generalizes its use and introduces several additional concepts, see Fig.4
(a). We avoid including correlative positions when the relationship is formal, thus reciprocity relator
can be specified by reciprocal commitments without specifying correlative claims or vice versa
(positions that can be omitted are depicted as a dashed line of a border in Fig.4). The correlative
relationship is formal in the independent view for simple transfers or accruals (or even can be reduced
to the value aspect of the relator), OR material for transfers that include service provision (and depict
production). We specify resources required and affected in specifying and fulfilling economic
commitments:
The Reciprocity Relator pattern is depicted in Fig.4(a). It involves two economic agents – a Party
and a Counterparty. The Reciprocity relator thus contains a minimum of two Commitment/Claim pairs.
The fulfillment and settlement include performances of the parties. Performance in the context of
reciprocity is not simply “doing" as stated in ATE [cf. 19], but an agreed resource transfer and service
provision for the benefit of the other party, in exchange for consideration. As noted in [6]: “Economic
behavior requires two elements. First, the outcome of behavior can be measured by money. Second, the
behavior is for the purpose of return or conducive to return.”
Enterprises use Resources to produce and sell Products and Services for Fair Value within an
Economic System. The disposition of this core economic process is depicted by Economic Resource
and Relator (a subkind of Reciprocity Relator). See Fig.4(b). As defined earlier Resources are Rights
that allow an enterprise to produce and exchange within the Economic System to obtain Economic
Benefits increasing the enterprise’s value. At the same time, these rights controlled by the enterprise
are intentions and conditional commitments to use resources for producing and supplying products
satisfying market demand in exchange for consideration in the amount of Fair Value.
5. Conclusions
Developing a core of OntoFINE can bring substantial benefits for reference ontology creation.
However, a careful selection of core subontologies and synchronizing with other UFO ontologies and
tools is needed. An important core element should be the Economic Resource and related concepts. Its
inclusion, subject to further discussions could be beneficial for the understanding of this rather complex
and general phenomenon.
Financial Reporting (Concepts and Standards) can be an important validator of OntoFINE. However,
it does not include some concepts (such as opportunity cost) or maintains a different understanding.
These differences have to be made clear if the OntoFINE includes Finance.
To arrive at a useful and commonly understood ontology network its subdomains and primarily the
core subdomain candidates need to be discussed in competitive research. Ontological commitment lists,
exemplified in Table 1 as well as element relationship matrixes could be a helpful methodological tool.
The due process could include principles similar to those of standard-setting 8.
6. References
[1] Amaral, G., T. P. Sales, and G. Guizzardi: Towards an Ontology Network in Finance and
Economics, EEWC, 2021
[2] IASB homepage, http://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards, IASB, 2022,
(accessed on 15.03.2022)
[3] FASB homepage, https://asc.fasb.org/, FASB Accounting Standards Codification, FASB, 2021
(accessed on 15.03.2022)
[4] IASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, IASB, 2018 (accessed on 15.03.2022)
8
https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/about-us/legal-and-governance/constitution-docs/due-process-handbook-2020.pdf
[5] FASB homepage, https://asc.fasb.org/, Concepts Statement No. 8. Conceptual Framework for
Financial Reporting—Chapter 4, Elements of Financial Statements (Issue Date 12/2021)
(accessed on 15.03.2022)
[6] Wang, Z., The Principle of Trading Economics, Springer, (2019)
[7] Blums, I., H. Weigand: Consolidating Economic Exchange Ontologies for Corporate Reporting
Standard Setting, International Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER 2021: 315-329, the
extended version is submitted to DKE journal.
[8] Blums, I., H. Weigand: Towards a Core Ontology of Economic Exchanges for Multilateral
Accounting Information Systems, EDOC 2020: 227-232
[9] Blums, I., H. Weigand: Towards a Reference Ontology of Complex Economic Exchanges for
Accounting Information Systems. EDOC 2016: 119-128
[10] Weigand, H., I. Blums and J.d. Kruijff: Shared Ledger Accounting — Implementing the
Economic Exchange Pattern, Information Systems (2020) 101437
[11] Blums, I., H. Weigand: Economic Resources vs Assets. VMBO 2019: 1-12
[12] Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural Conceptual Models. Ph.D. thesis, CTIT,
Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Enschede (2005)
[13] Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C., Almeida, J.P., Sales, T.P., Benevides, A.B., Porello, D., Types and
Taxonomic Structures in Conceptual Modeling: A Novel Ontological Theory and Engineering
Support, Data & Knowledge Engineering, (accepted, forthcoming, 2021).
[14] Ijiri, Y.: A Framework for Triple-Entry Bookkeeping. The Accounting Review, Vol. 61, No. 4
(Oct. 1986), pp. 745-759
[15] Azevedo C.L.B. et al: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: A well-
founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Information Systems. 54: 235-262 (2015)
[16] Bringuente, A.C.: Falbo, R.A.; Guizzardi, G. Using a Foundational Ontology for Reengineering
a Software Process Ontology. Journal of Information and Data Management, 2011
[17] Nardi, J.C., et al.: A commitment-based reference ontology for services. Information Systems.
54, 263–288 (2015)
[18] Griffo, C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Nardi, J.C.: Service contract modeling in Enterprise
Architecture: An ontology-based approach. Inf. Syst. 101: 101454 (2021)
[19] Porello, D., Guizzardi, G., Sales, T.P., Amaral, G.: A Core Ontology for Economic Exchanges,
ER 2020: 364-374
[20] Ruy, F., Falbo, R.A., Barcellos, M.P., Costa, S.D., Guizzardi, G.: SEON: A Software
Engineering Ontology Network, EKAW 2016, Bologna, Italy, 2016
[21] Ijiri, Y.: Theory of Accounting Measurement. American Accounting Association (1975)
[22] McCarthy, W. E., (1982). The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for
Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment. Accounting Review, 57(3): 554-578
[23] Sales, T.P., N. Guarino, G. Guizzardi, J. Mylopoulos: Towards an Ontology of Competition.
VMBO 2018
[24] Weigand, H., P. Johannesson, M. Bergholtz: Accounting for service value - An ontological
approach. RCIS 2015: 159-168
[25] Weigand, H., Johannesson, P., Andersson, B. Bergholtz M.: Value-based service modeling and
design: Toward a unified view of services Int. Conference on Advanced Information Systems
Engineering, 410-424 (2009)
[26] Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations.
ICMAS 95: 41-48
[27] Chambers, S.A.: Capitalist Economics., Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press
2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197556887.003.0002
[28] Schwaiger, W.S.A., et al.: OntoREA© Accounting and Finance Model, PoEM 2019, LNBIP
369, pp. 53–67, 2019
[29] Ferrario A., N. Guarino, M. Fernández-Barrera: Towards an ontological foundation for services
science: The legal perspective Approaches to legal ontologies, 235-258 (2011)