<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>J. Akoka);</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>The journey of conceptual modeling: Paths from the past to present with trajectories for the future</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Jacky Akoka</string-name>
          <email>jacky.akoka@lecnam.net</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau</string-name>
          <email>wattiau@essec.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Nicolas Prat</string-name>
          <email>prat@essec.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Veda C. Storey</string-name>
          <email>vstorey@gsu.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>CEDRIC-CNAM</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Paris</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="FR">France</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>ESSEC Business School</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Cergy-Pontoise</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="FR">France</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Georgia State University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Atlanta, GA</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2023</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>000</volume>
      <fpage>0</fpage>
      <lpage>0002</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The field of conceptual modeling has been in existence for over five decades. To understand how the field has evolved and should continue to evolve, it is useful to examine the contributions made over time and the topics that have emerged. In this research, we apply bibliometric analysis to a corpus of 4652 research papers spanning from 1976 to 2022. Cocitation and citation networks are produced that show the different schools of thought, the main topics of the domain, and the relationships among major and influential research papers over time. The co-citation analysis identifies four schools of thought. It elicits the separation between the historical cluster centered around Chen's seminal paper and another cluster proposing grammars and guidelines for representing the real world using conceptual modeling and methods for evaluating these representations. A bibliographic coupling analysis on papers from 2017 to 2022 results in ten clusters that characterize the main themes, including domainspecific conceptual modeling and applications, ontologies and applications, genomics, and datastores and multi-model data. The main path analysis of the citation network identifies several main paths among major and most influential papers. This leads to insights on the lineage of key papers in conceptual modeling research. The primordial nature of the main paths identified encompasses two important aspects. The first revolves around the refinement of the entity-relationship model. The second identifies the contribution of ontologies for conceptual modeling.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>1 Conceptual modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>Bibliographic Topic Analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>Main Path Analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>Co-citation Analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>Bibliographic Coupling Analysis</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Conceptual modeling is an important area of research that has continued to evolve over five decades.
It will continue to serve as an important part of future information systems development. To understand
the field of conceptual modeling, it would be useful to examine prior work and classify it, in order to
appreciate the type of work that has already been carried out and how it is continuing. As in other
academic research fields, conceptual modeling has evolved. Its evolution could be informative in
understanding its potential for future progression, as well as its importance, relevance, and impact.
Furthermore, it might not always be obvious what topics are being investigated and the type of research
that takes place [36, 63].</p>
      <p>There have been notable attempts to categorize and make sense of the field of conceptual modeling,
considering its vast amount of work. Most prior studies, however, have concentrated primarily on
papers published in the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling or related journals, such as
Data and Knowledge Engineering. There has been less emphasis on studying the entire period of
research since the publication of Chen’s [27] initial work on the entity-relationship model, thereby
establishing the need for conceptual modeling. Furthermore, most studies employ specific keywords.
They use a limited set of bibliometric techniques and do not focus on the impact of the research. The
latter could be assessed, for example, by observing citation counts. Given the large number of research
projects and papers on conceptual modeling, it seems reasonable that an automated approach to
analyzing this research is needed.</p>
      <p>We aim at exploring the conceptual modeling research domain and analyze its body of literature.
More precisely, our objective is to improve our understanding of the conceptual modeling field, gain
insights into it, and thus be able to better guide future research. In our bibliographic analysis, we focus
on responding to the following general research question: How can we identify and appreciate the
journey of conceptual modeling? This research question is decomposed into three sub-questions:
• RQ1: What is the intellectual structure of conceptual modeling?
• RQ2: What are the main themes of conceptual modeling research?
• RQ3: What are the paths linking the most influential publications in conceptual modeling?
To address these questions, this paper performs a topic analysis of conceptual modeling research
using bibliometric analysis. This research makes several contributions. The first contribution is to
extract a timeline that shows how the field of conceptual modeling has progressed. We perform a
longitudinal overview of the conceptual modeling (CM) field, allowing us to describe the state of the
literature on CM, identify the publication venues. Second, we apply three types of analysis: co-citation
analysis (CCA), bibliographic coupling (BCA), and main path analysis (MPA). We identify several
important paths that reflect the progression of the field, as well as how the paths or related research
topics have evolved and make inferences about what we can learn from this evolution. The analysis is
represented by several networks with the identification of “nodes” that signify major topics and how
they are related, or linked, to other topics. Specific research papers that have impacted the field are
highlighted and discussed for their significance. Third, we provide a summary of the results that might
be useful for students and other researchers who wish to participate in this field.</p>
      <p>The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 reviews related research on efforts to understand and
structure the field of conceptual modeling. Section 3 provides an overview of how the bibliometric
analysis is conducted. Section 4 provides the results obtained. Section 5 discusses the main findings,
the limitations, concludes the paper and proposes future research.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Related research</title>
      <p>There have been prior efforts to study the field of conceptual modeling. First, some authors proposed
frameworks to help understand this domain. Delcambre et al. [36], for example, propose a reference
framework for identifying and characterizing contributions to conceptual modeling to help researchers
position their work. The framework might also help researchers in other fields understand what the field
of conceptual modeling is able to offer. Mayr and Thalheim [80] propose a framework for understanding
conceptual models, the Triptych paradigm, as an approach that classifies conceptual models linking
linguistic terms and encyclopedic notions. Recker et al. [95] reviewed publications in information
systems, to create a framework that focused on conceptual modeling in the digital world.</p>
      <p>Other authors performed an analysis of conceptual modeling papers. Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas
[2] explored the reasons why issues of ontological foundation and modeling practices may result in
differences between alternative modeling techniques. Molina et al. [81] surveyed conceptual modeling
related to groupware. Fettke [43] investigated how practitioners use conceptual modeling to identify
the barriers and success factors when using conceptual modeling. Chen [28] provides an overview of
the progression of the conceptual modeling conferences over the first 30 years, identifying continued
research topics and collaboration among multiple fields, across international boundaries. Frank et al.
[45] conducted a synoptical review of modeling publications in the domain of business information
systems engineering, highlighting research that shapes the field of a future research agenda.</p>
      <p>Automatic analysis techniques, including bibliometric techniques may be relevant when a domain is
growing rapidly [114]. Some authors explain the bibliometric techniques of citation and co-citation
graph analysis and apply them to different fields such as desoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) theory or
management [65, 127]. Regarding conceptual modeling, C. Chen et al. [26] conducted a citation
analysis to identify trends. Cosentino et al. [31] focused on authors and papers in conferences to
automate conference analytics. Lima et al. [72] analyzed the collaboration of authors over forty years
of participation in the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.</p>
      <p>A relevant article that pursues a similar objective to ours is that of Härer and Fill [63] who report on
a bibliometric analysis of over 3,000 publications, from nine outlets, using Latent Dirichlet Allocation
(LDA). The researchers sought to investigate the different types of conceptual models found in various
communities and educational environments to identify topics and visions for future research. They
focused on the quantity of papers, authors, major topics, and their evolution. They identified three
periods with increasing publications as being: 2005-2009; 2010-2014; and 2015-2019.</p>
      <p>These efforts, however, do not always cover the entire period from 1976 to 2022. No prior study
exploits bibliographic coupling and main path analyses techniques in the field of conceptual modeling.
We intend to fill this research gap by proposing a bibliometric analysis that: 1) covers the entire period
from Chen's [27] 1976 seminal paper on the entity-relationship model to 2022; 2) exploits bibliometric
techniques to automatically discover the intellectual basis of conceptual modeling, its main themes and
main trajectories along citation links; and 3) compares the results obtained by the different techniques.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Methodology</title>
      <p>In this section, we successively describe the conceptual model that represents the underlying
concepts of our approach and their relationships, before providing the steps carried out.
3.1.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Underlying conceptual model</title>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Our methodology relies on a conceptual model depicted at Figure 1.</title>
        <p>Bibliometrics considers documents published by authors. Each document has a title, a year of
publication, a status (article in press or final), an abstract, a type of document (article, review,
conference paper, etc.), a language, and a number of citations per bibliometric database (Google
Scholar, Scopus, etc.). A document is described by keywords that can be provided by the authors or
generated by other means. A document belongs to one or more subject areas (computer science,
management, etc.). It is published in a source described by a type (journal, book, conference
proceedings, etc.). A document cites other documents and it may, itself, be cited by other documents.
A document is written by one or more authors (listed in a specific order). The authors mention, at the
time of publication, one or more affiliations in institutions located in different countries. Each
bibliometric technique (CCA, BCA, MPA) is applied to a dataset. The latter describes the bibliographic
information of a set of documents returned from a bibliographic source database (Scopus, Web of
Science, etc.) by a query at a certain date (extraction date). A citing document can be cited in the same
dataset by one or more other documents: local citations counts the number of times a citing article is
cited within a dataset. The different techniques compute metrics and build clusters based on the latter.
CCA clusters documents that are cited together (cocited). BCA clusters documents based on their
common citations. MPA computes weights attached to edges in a citation graph. In our research, we
tested different weights using three different metrics of the literature: Search Path Count (SPC), Search
Path Link Count (SPLC) [65], and Weighted Direct Citation (WDC) [90].</p>
        <p>Cosentino et al. [31] also proposed a conceptual model representing bibliographic information. Our
work differs, though, because we do not have the same goal. They use the conceptual model as the first
step to build a database for analyzing conferences and proceedings, whereas we use our conceptual
model as a basis for our methodology. The main concepts of document, author, institution, and country
overlap between the two models. The dataset description, the bibliometric techniques, and the metrics
(local citations, cocited, commoncitations, citation weights, GS citations, scopus citations), upon which
we build our clusters and algorithms, are specific to our conceptual model.
3.2.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Steps in bibliometric analysis</title>
      <p>Research design. This research employs bibliometric techniques to analyze research on conceptual
modeling. We extend and update prior co-citation analyses on conceptual modeling. We also investigate
two additional, complementary analysis techniques. The first, bibliographic coupling analysis, is used
to identify the key themes of research traditions in conceptual modeling. The second, main path
analysis, enables us to identify the most influential and central publications in conceptual modeling.</p>
      <p>Data extraction. This step identifies relevant bibliographic databases and defines a querying
strategy for extracting a suitable dataset. More precisely, we build a common dataset to answer the three
research questions. Co-citation analysis is performed using the whole dataset. However, bibliographic
coupling is relevant only for a limited, and recent, time span. Therefore, regarding this technique, we
use only a subset of the main dataset limited to the most recent publications. Finally, due to its inherent
logic, main path analysis is restricted to a specific subset of publications as explained below. The entities
source, document, author, institution, country, keyword, subject area of the conceptual model of Figure
1 guide the construction of queries and the data extraction.</p>
      <p>Data preparation. The information extracted describing the documents from a single bibliographic
database presents a good homogeneity, without requiring cleansing operations. On the other hand, to
be able to construct the citation and co-citation graphs used by all bibliometric techniques, it is
necessary to be able to deduplicate the references of the cited articles sufficiently. The cleansing thus
carried out makes it possible to improve the quality of the information collected within the document
entity and to deduce the citation links of the cites relationship of the conceptual model.</p>
      <p>Preliminary analysis. This step is a first analysis of the dataset. It consists of the: distribution of
papers over time, analysis of the most frequent words, trends in terms of keywords, publication outlets
(journals, conferences), authors who had contributed the most publications, and journals and
conferences where the papers were published. This step uses the information contained in most of the
entities and relationships of the model (document, source, author, keyword, etc.) in Figure 1.</p>
      <p>Schools of thought identification. In a vast field like conceptual modeling, many contributions
coexist. If several articles are often cited by the same articles (cocited metric of the conceptual model),
they constitute a school of thought. The co-citation analysis relies on this frequency to build clusters
whose similarity reveals a common school of thought. The size of the clusters and their cohesion are
elements of appreciation of the number of such schools of thought within a research field.</p>
      <p>Research themes identification. Inside a research domain, publications that cite many common
papers generally address the same research theme (commoncitations metric of the conceptual model).
Therefore, clustering such papers together is a way to characterize these themes. This is precisely the
focus of bibliographic coupling analysis. Scientometric literature justifies bibliographic coupling to
analyze more recent articles that do not yet have a significant number of citations. Furthermore, it
recommends limiting this bibliographic coupling analysis to the last five or six years to allow a fair
analysis of these recent articles.</p>
      <p>Main paths identification. Understanding a research field requires eliciting the main research
trajectories. The techniques that analyse main paths compute metrics attached to citation links,
depending on how many paths traverse these links. Several different metrics (SPC, SPLC, WDC metrics
of the conceptual model) may be used. Moreover, different algorithms (local, global, key-route) are
implemented. Depending on these parameters, it is possible to identify different main paths.</p>
      <p>Interpretation. Each bibliometric analysis provides a perspective on exploring the CM research
field. Combining them enriches the analysis, and reinforces the findings. It also facilitates the detection
of the dynamics of the field. From the main paths that emerge, the researchers can interpret the themes
or important topics from the papers identified as being on the paths.</p>
      <p>Thus, our approach proposes a conceptual model and a methodology for analyzing conceptual
modeling research using scientometric analysis techniques. Its application is described below.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>4. Application of our approach</title>
      <sec id="sec-6-1">
        <title>In this section, we describe successively the different steps depicted in Figure 2.</title>
        <p>Research design. The objective of this research is to characterize the conceptual modeling research
field using bibliometric techniques. These techniques allow us to identify the different schools of
thought, the recent research themes being addressed, and the main trajectories of research. We employ
three types of quantitative analyses: namely, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and main path
analysis. Guided by our three research questions, we provide a systematic overview of conceptual
modeling research with a transverse and a temporal perspective. The comparisons of the different
analyses, using mainly citation and co-citation links, enable us to elicit the dynamics of the field.
Adapting and extending detailed questions from [127], Table 1 summarizes how these three types of
analysis are appropriate for addressing our research questions.</p>
        <p>Data extraction. Table 2 summarizes the inclusion criteria we used to define our data extraction
strategy. We queried the Scopus bibliographic database,2 since it offers the largest amount of indexed
data in our field. The phrase, conceptual model, is widely accepted and used in multiple fields.
Therefore, we prefered to use conceptual modeling (with one or two ls) and added entity-relationship
model as search chains. However, in the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), since
conceptual modeling is the universe of discourse, these phrases are often not mentioned. Therefore, in
these outlets (ER proceedings), we did not use these search chains, but selected all papers. The search
for papers on conceptual modeling included papers from 1976 (Chen’s [27] seminal paper) to 2022;
papers published in the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER) and associated
workshop proceedings; papers published in journals, conference proceedings and LNCS book series
explicitly addressing conceptual modeling (i.e. containing one of the search chains). The papers were
required to be written in English and correspond to subject areas of computer science, management,
and decision sciences.
Three queries were used to generate the datasets.
• Dataset 1 (DS1): Extract articles published in the proceedings of the ER conferences and
workshops present in Scopus (1992-2022).
• Dataset 2 (DS2): Search for the presence of the exact keywords: conceptual modeling,
conceptual modelling, entity-relationship model in the title, the abstract or the author keywords
of the journal articles or conferences published in English between 1976 and 2022 and
referenced in Scopus.
• Dataset 3 (DS3): Search for the presence of the same keywords in articles published between
1976 and 2022 in the LNCS series to retrieve articles from conferences such as CAiSE,
MODELS, PoEMS, RCIS and referenced in Scopus.</p>
        <p>Data preparation. Merging the three datasets resulted in 4,652 documents (citing papers). The
number of cited references is 102,568. The datasets were cleansed and merged in preparation for the
next steps using CRExplorer [111] which supports the merging of datasets extracted from Scopus. The
result is the elimination of duplicate cited articles (reduced from 102,568 to 70,747) and the
transformation into WoS (Web of Science) format, since this is the best format for most of software
employed: Pajek, BibExcel, VOSviewer.</p>
        <p>Preliminary Analysis. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of publications over the entire period.
Starting our analysis in 1976 is relevant because, before 1979, conceptual modeling research was not
significant. Analyzing this distribution curve leads to the identification of three main periods. During
the first period that emerged, the total number of publications is 99; an average of seven per year. The
first International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER) in 1979 seems to have triggered the
publication of papers in journals and other conferences starting in 1980. Note that the number of
publications is minimized in our dataset since the ER proceedings during this period (until 1992) are
2 https://www.scopus.com/home.uri
not referenced in Scopus (or in WoS). The curve takes a definite turn from 1989 onwards, as the number
of publications explodes (111 per year on average), leading to the take-off of the conceptual modelling
field. The dip in 1993 and the peak in 1994 have a very simple explanation: the proceedings of the 1993
ER conference were not published until the following year. As illustrated in Figure 3, the largest number
of publications (252) is recorded in 2008 and accounts for 5.4% of the total documents. The third period
(from 2009) shows a decline in the number of publications. It is possible that authors are now using
more precise keywords, as conceptual modeling has matured in both research and professional practice.
The figures for 2020 to 2022 may result from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research activity.
Also, the figures for 2022 are not definitive, because articles are still being published.</p>
        <p>The graph showing the average number of citations per year (number of articles*number of citations,
normalized by the number of years since) is not provided for space reasons. It is flattened by the 1976
outlier which marks Chen's [27] article, which is by far the most cited, whether in or out of the sample.
After removing this outlier, year 1993 marks a slight outlier, which can be explained partly by the
seminal paper of Dardenne [33] on goal-directed requirements acquisition. The most relevant source is
the book series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), which represents 56% of the entire
publication set. It contains papers from the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling and
associated workshops that we systematically (without filter with search chain) inserted in the dataset.
Also notable is the presence of 58 articles from the Elsevier Information Systems journal in the dataset.</p>
        <p>In terms of the most cited sources, LNCS is also the first, followed by ACM Transactions on
Database Systems (due to Chen’s [27] paper), Springer (other than LNCS), Addison-Wesley,
Information Systems, Communications of the ACM, Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering, MIS Quarterly,
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering and Information Systems Research. In terms of the most
local (within the dataset) cited papers, Chen’s [27] paper leads by far (488 citations), followed by the
PhD thesis of Guizzardi [55] (186 citations), Wand et Weber’s [118] Information Systems Research
commentary (138 citations), and Batini et al.’s [8] conceptual database design book (137 citations).
Countries having at least 150 papers in our dataset are, in descending order, USA, Germany, Italy,
Spain, Canada, Australia, Brazil, France, Netherlands, China, Belgium, UK, and Austria. The most
frequent author keywords in the dataset are (in descending order): conceptual modeling, ontology,
conceptual model, entity-relationship model, database design, UML, requirements engineering, and
data warehouse. The analysis of frequent keywords over time also shows that conceptual modeling
increased until 2008, and somewhat stagnated thereafter.</p>
        <p>The longitudinal analysis described above provides a broad overview of the CM field and offers
some insights for authors seeking publication venues.
4.1.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Schools of thought identification (RQ1)</title>
      <p>The structuring of the conceptual modeling field is reflected by grouping researchers around
frequently cited articles. These co-citations provide a way to identify commonalities among a set of
publications. They thus reflect a school of thought that brings together research efforts that are based
on the same body of knowledge. Clustering the dataset based on the number of articles cited, in
common, leads to the identification of such schools of thought. For the co-citation analysis, we use
VOSviewer software, for a variety of reasons including the quality of the visualizations it produced, the
performance of the software, and its interoperability with CRExplorer.</p>
      <p>VOSviewer [112] allows us to first select the cited papers on which it will compute the common
citations. There is no guideline regarding the number of papers to consider or the minimum number of
citations a paper must have. Therefore, selecting a good setting requires sufficient knowledge of the
research domain. We successively tested different settings. Finally, cited references were selected if
they were cited at least 30 times (locally in the dataset), resulting in 89 papers. This step also required
testing with different values of the VOSviewer resolution parameter leading to a certain level of
clustering. The larger the value of the resolution parameter, the larger the number of clusters that are
obtained. We opted for a resolution equal to one and obtained the four clusters shown in Figure 4.</p>
      <p>In Figure 4, the size of the nodes is related to the number of local citations of the paper, with one
color representing one cluster. Note that the constract induced by the size of the nodes had to be reduced
to avoid the predominance of highly cited articles (e.g. Chen [27] overpowering the visual importance
3 There are some observed data quality issues related to the years in the source.
of the others). The thickness of the lines represents the extent to which these references were co-cited.
For readability, very thin lines are omitted. We identified four schools of thought that included
contributions of: 1) Chen [27], 2) Wand and Weber [118], 3) Hevner et al. [64], and 4) Guizzardi [55].
The main cluster (39 papers, in red), emerged, as expected, from Chen’s [27] introduction of the
entityrelationship model, which provided a simple, usable, and understandable set of constructs that could be
used to abstract and model the real world. This paper serves as a well-known defining point in
conceptual modeling. An interesting feature of this cluster is the high number of books on databases
and object-orientation [1, 25, 38-40, 86, 98, 99, 109]. The second cluster (26 papers, in green) can be
described as focusing on the quality of conceptual modeling. Its central paper of Wand and Weber
[118] introduced ontology to analyze and understand concepts in conceptual modeling. The third
cluster (15 papers, in blue) gathers papers that refer to design science research as well as to requirements
engineering, proposing methods such as iStar [125]. Hevner et al.’s paper [64] is central in the graph of
Figure 4. It is a seminal paper on design science research, which inspires the work of this cluster and
others in the other clusters. Recall that co-citation analysis clusters papers referenced by conceptual
modeling papers; these referenced papers may not be directly related to conceptual modeling. Finally,
the fourth cluster (9 items in yellow) combines ontologies and conceptual modeling. The most
influential paper in this cluster is Guizzardi’s work on ontology [55], which defines the general
ontological foundations for conceptual modeling. Although diverse, these four schools of thought
reflect the composition of work in the field. In short, Cluster 1 corresponds to conceptual modeling
and databases in all their forms. Cluster 2 contains contributions in terms of grammars and guidelines
for conceptual modeling. Cluster 3 contains mainly requirements engineering models and methods.
Finally, Cluster 4 is composed of ontology constructs for conceptual modeling.
4.2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Research themes identification (RQ2)</title>
      <p>Co-citation analysis builds on papers that are most cited, but does not consider recent papers, without
an opportunity to be well-cited. Scientometric experts recommend complementing it with other
analyses. Thus, we performed a bibliographic coupling analysis (BCA) to identify recent themes of
conceptual modeling research. Bibliographic coupling groups together articles sharing common
references. More precisely, the more bibliographic references two articles share, the closer they are
considered to each other. Clusters are built on this similarity.</p>
      <p>The BCA is based on 943 papers, a subset of our previous sample limited to papers published over
the six last years (2017→2022). We obtained the best result with 10 clusters using VOSviewer,
retaining all papers cited at least 5 times, and leading to a connected component of 232 papers (Figure
5). VOSviewer does not allow the specification of a fixed number of clusters. Rather, the user provides
a resolution value. The higher the resolution, the larger the number of clusters. Therefore, we used a
resolution of 0.70, which generated 10 clusters. Clustering does not necessarily bring together articles
that adopt the same approaches, but rather, articles that address the same subjects. In a field such as
conceptual modeling, the BCA distinguishes the different application sub-fields. From 2017 to 2022,
we obtain 10 such application sub-fields. The size of the cluster represents the importance of the
subfield, as well as the importance of the associated community, since these articles share more references.</p>
      <p>The clusters are shown in Table 3. It is not surprising that the first cluster that emerged is related to
work on domain-specific approaches, which focus on adapting conceptual modeling to a specific
domain and accumulating a body of knowledge for this sub-field. For example, Bork [19] focused on
conceptual modeling in smart city domains. Cluster 2 focuses on ontologies, as such, or projected onto
application domains. Cluster 6 groups together CM applications to different domains, with possible
recourse to ontologies. Cluster 3 is dedicated to requirements engineering, including goal-oriented
approaches. Cluster 4 focuses on processes. Cluster 5 brings together contributions on database
modeling, mainly relating to the NoSQL world, as these are recent publications. Cluster 7 focuses on
the application domain of healthcare, including biology. Cluster 8 contains the most theoretical work
on CM. In cluster 9, researchers adopt multi-level modeling. Finally, cluster 10 merges temporal and
economic approaches requiring conceptual modeling.</p>
      <p>We conducted an additional BCA on previous periods and could identify other application domains
of conceptual modeling, for example database design in the early periods or Web design between 2000
and 2010. This proves that conceptual modeling has been around for almost fifty years, and it is still
very adaptable. Not only has it kept pace with the evolution of databases (its first field of application
and is now present in cluster 5), but it has also broadened its field of application to include, for example,
process modeling or genomics.
6
35
32
27
26
26
25</p>
      <sec id="sec-8-1">
        <title>Domain-specific CM and applications Bork [19, 21], Buchmann [22],</title>
        <p>Delcambre [36]; Fill [44],
Gonzalez</p>
        <p>Perez [49] Johannsen [67]
Ontologies and applications Guizzardi [56], Verdonck [113], Sales
[100], Griffo [51], Gu [53], Guarino [54]
Goal models and requirements engine- Lucassen [75], Guo [60], Becker [10],
ering, incl. digital twins and chatbots Dalibor [32]
Process model including process mod- Combi [30], Yeshchenko [122], Nguyen
eling, process mining, process behavior [84]</p>
        <p>including learning and pedagogy
Data and databases: datastore, NoSQL, Roy-Hubara [97], De la Vega [34],
multimodel data Bonifati [15]
Applications with or without ontologies Andreassen [6], Lukyanenko [68], de
Nicola [35]</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-8-2">
        <title>Note: The analysis provides only the last name of the first author.</title>
        <p>4.3.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Main paths identification (RQ3)</title>
      <p>We used Main Path Analysis (MPA) to identify the most influential publications in the CM field.
We, therefore, constructed the citation network using Scopus and mapped it to identify the most
important paths of influence among the publications. Three parameters must be adjusted. First, the
edges are labeled with centrality measures. The choice of a centrality measure provides a different
perspective on the importance of nodes and links in the network. We tested different measures and
different path calculation algorithms with different settings. It appears that the choice between SPC,
SPLC and SPNP metrics (as offered by the Pajek software) does not clearly impact the results. Thus,
we chose SPC, as recommended and employed by other researchers. The SPC metric is the number of
times a citation link is traversed when exhausting the search from the source nodes to the sink nodes.
A high SPC value characterizes a citation link that helps a great deal in knowledge diffusion. Second,
several algorithms (mainly local search and global search) may be used to compute these metrics. In
terms of the algorithm, a local search provided a richer graph, as confirmed by several authors. A third
parameter is the number of top citation links (called key-routes) that we want to include at least in the
graph. We applied the graph calculation on 30 key-routes to express the maximum possible paths, while
remaining readable. The result is shown in Figure 6.
4 The output is given in terms of only the last name of the first author. The same labeling is used by us in the text when
referencing the nodes. There were some observed quality issues with the year in Scopus.</p>
      <p>Analysis of the graph in Figure 6 reveals three main dynamics that follow one another over time. The
first dynamic, which we call "refinement of ER model", integrates the paths from the Chen 1976 [27]
node to the Parsons 2000 [89] node. It includes Batra 1990 [9], who compares the representational
capacity of the entity-relationship model and the relational model. Wand 1995 [117] proposes the
conceptual modeling requirements that information systems must meet. Parsons 1997 [88] is the first
source article for this graph that does not cite Chen 1976 [27]. The article proposes guidelines for
facilitating the choice of object classes to be modeled in an effort to represent a domain. Wand 1999
[115] complements Parsons 1997 [88] with guidelines for relationships in entity-relationship conceptual
modeling. Finally, Parsons 2000 [89] proposes a two-level modeling of classes and their instances.</p>
      <p>The second dynamic is what we call “improvement of conceptual modeling with ontologies”. This
dynamic is much more extensive in terms of the number of contributions and the number of links
between them. The crossroads of many paths are Shanks 2003 [104], Shanks 2008 [104], Recker 2011
[95], Guizzardi 2014 [58], and Wand 2017 [119]. The introduction of ontologies to facilitate and make
more robust conceptual modeling is an important and perennial phenomenon, initiated gradually from
the early 1990s. Shanks 2003 [104] is the first paper in these main paths to propose using ontologies to
validate conceptual models. Shanks 2008 [103] focuses on the validation of part-whole relationships
using the same ontological approach. Finally, Guizzardi 2014 (in fact, published in 2015 in Applied
Ontology [58]) describes the foundational ontology UFO and the associated language OntoUML. A
third dynamic, which we call “conceptual modeling for digital world,” seems to be emerging from
2017, with focus on more recent concepts such as crowdsourcing (Lukyanenko 2017 [77]), open
platforms (Bork 2019 [20]), mixing physical and digital realities (Recker 2021 [95]).</p>
      <p>The graph in Figure 6 was built using SPC metrics. In SPC (as well as SPLC or SPNP metrics),
citation link weights denote information flows, rather than similarity between nodes. This is a
wellknown limitation [90]. Therefore, we used another metric namely WDC [90]. The latter stands for
"Weighted Directed Citation". It enriches SPC by considering the fact that the source and target nodes
of a link share common references or are co-cited. Thus, this WDC metric combines information flow
with additional semantics. We thus generated an alternative main path as shown in Figure 7. This main
path is interesting because it identifies the same 10-12 influential papers of the other graph (Figure 6).
These are also the papers found in all the tests performed in this research. In addition, it enriches the
main path in Figure 6 with paths that are somewhat different. Overall, this additional analysis provides
the basis for an expanded interpretation of this body of work.</p>
      <p>A comparison of the two graphs (Figure 6 and Figure 7) thus generated shows the specificity of the
WDC metric, which tends to show publications that are present because of their impact, but which do
not follow in the graph insofar as this influence is more localized in time (e.g. [48, 79, 107]). Apart
from these few new nodes that appear at different places in the graph (and therefore in time), another
difference is the proportion of nodes per epoch. Thus, in the graph of Figure 6, more than three quarters
of the nodes are articles published after 2000, whereas in Figure 7, the year 2000 appears to mark the
median year of the graph (in the sense that we find almost as many publications before 2000 as after).
A more recent new node is Fettke 2009 [43] (in Figure 7), which investigates the use of conceptual
modeling by practitioners. Eriksson [41] shows the continuity of the ontological stream. Thus, the
common main paths of both graphs may be insightful.</p>
      <p>Identifying a clear path for many papers is difficult and leads to challenges in trying to “disentangle”
the graph. All the contributions represented in Figures 6 and 7 play an important role in the chain of
diffusion of knowledge in conceptual modelling. If we try to identify common paths that integrate the
two points of view expressed respectively by the SPC and WDC metrics, we can superimpose the two
previous graphs and extract the longest common paths. This results in the two paths shown in Figure 8.</p>
      <p>By comparing and confronting the different bibliometric analyses, a periodization of the progress of
conceptual modeling research emerges. The longitudinal study highlighted three periods of: emergence,
take-off and dissemination of conceptual modeling. The emergence of conceptual modelling
(19761989) is confirmed by main path analysis, which reveals there are no articles in our dataset between
Chen [27] and Storey and Goldstein [107], regardless of the metric used. The take-off period
(19892008) is prolific in terms of the number of contributions. It includes an initial sub-period of refinement
of the entity-relationship model concepts (1989-1995), followed by the appearance of references to
ontologies until their full use (1995-2008). The third period of dissemination (starting in 2008) saw the
continuation of work on ontologies for conceptual modeling (see main path analysis), as well as the
emergence of numerous application themes for conceptual modeling revealed by the bibliographic
coupling analysis. Finally, the four schools of thought identified through the co-citation analysis
appeared at the start of the take-off phase and continue to this day.</p>
      <p>Table 4 summarizes the main results of the various bibliometric analyses carried out on the
conceptual modeling dataset. The frontier years of the first column are, of course, approximate. The
table enables us to compare the different periods or themes revealed by these analyses. Thus, the
emergence phase revealed by the longitudinal study finds its equivalent in the main path analysis. As
the bibliographic coupling was mainly done over the last 6 years, we have only presented three generic
clusters that cover the entire period: the one that brings together theoretical developments around CM;
the one that brings together applications; and, finally, other more specific themes. This table provides
a cross-fertilization of analyses that merit further development and will be pursued in our future
research. It can be seen as the first step of validation of our findings.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>5. Discussion</title>
      <p>Guided by an objective to understand and appreciate the vast amount of research that has been
carried out on conceptual modeling, since the beginning of its history, this research conducted a
bibliometric analysis of papers to identify their impact and how they are positioned with respect to the
field and with respect to each other. We were particularly interested in identifying: the different periods
of research as the field progressed to identify what we could learn from them; and a trajectory for
continued research in conceptual modeling. Three types of analysis were applied: co-citation analysis,
bibliographic coupling, and main path analysis. The latter was central to our understanding of the main
topics, around which others can be organized.</p>
      <p>With respect to our research questions, for RQ1 (intellectual structure of conceptual modeling), four
interesting schools of thought emerged, each of which can be traced to specific articles related
respectively to the entity-relationship model formulation [27] in Cluster 1, ontology in information
systems [116] in Cluster 2, the use of conceptual modeling in design science research [64] and
conceptual modeling for requirements engineering [124] in Cluster 3, and ontology in computer science
[55] in Cluster 4. The four clusters contain many solution-oriented articles (proposing a novel solution
for a problem), some books, and vision-oriented publications (e.g., proposing research agendas). Few
focus on evaluation or experimentation.</p>
      <p>For RQ2 (main themes of conceptual modeling research), ten clusters of research topics emerged
from our analysis, which were supported by multiple papers. These were based on more current
research, and thereby provide insights into ongoing efforts, which would be of particular interest to
students or researchers new to the field.</p>
      <p>For RQ3 (paths linking the most influential publications), our path analysis showed that, not
surprisingly, there are main paths of research on conceptual modeling that stemmed from the seminal
work of Chen [27], which established the field. Less obvious is that, as shown through additional
analysis, there is not a unique path, but rather several paths providing a historical timeline.</p>
      <p>The overall results show that, despite the current trend of less publications in the field of conceptual
modeling, it is still very viable and adaptable to many different application domains. The topics that
have been identified reveal a good, but diverse, set of interests. This adaptability is important for both
teaching conceptual modeling (and conceptual modeling research seminars) and initiating further
research, by either new or experienced students and researchers.
5.1.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Limitations</title>
      <p>There are several limitations. There is no universal definition of conceptual modeling, making it
difficult Conceptual modeling has not a universal definition, making the choice of appropriate keywords
questionable. Moreover, we used Scopus to identify a dataset. Of course, it might have provided more,
or less, papers than required, due to the difficulty of identifying exact keywords. For example, ER
conference proceedings are not indexed by Scopus before 1992. Many pieces of software were used
that required many parameters to be set correctly. Since there are very few guidelines available to help
select the metrics, the algorithms, and the values of the parameters, we adopted an empirical approach
and relied on our personal knowledge and understanding of the conceptual modeling field. Given the
sample size of the papers, it would have been impossible to obtain any meaningful results manually.
Therefore, we relied on different types of software that might have introduced biases into their
algorithms. Finally, since this is a bibliometric study, we focused on past research categorization to help
understand the structure and dynamics of a field and its possible evolutions.</p>
      <p>Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and main path analysis have certain limitations. As
noted, the data quality may not always be satisfactory. Missing or incorrectly cited documents may
affect the accuracy and the completeness of the citation and co-citation graphs. Bibliographic coupling
is performed on a limited time window (here six years as generally recommended). The inclusion
criteria used to select the data impact the final dataset. For example, conceptual modeling may have
synonyms that were omitted. The bibliometric techniques focus on citation and co-occurrence
relationships between documents, while ignoring the semantic of these relationships. It is well-known
that sometimes the use of self-citations, although relevant, may accentuate the importance of certain
links in the calculation of main paths. Finally, the analyses and the visualizations highlight only the first
authors, due to the limitations of the software we used.</p>
      <p>As far as threats to validity are concerned, we refer to Wohlin et al. [121] who proposed a set of
validity threats; namely construct validity, external validity, internal validity, and conclusion validity.
Construct validity here relates to the choice of the bibliometric techniques to address the research
questions. The results obtained with these quantitative techniques depend partly on the choice of the
associated parameters. We do not consider external validity at this stage, since we did not check the
choices (in terms of algorithms, thresholds, metrics, etc.) and the results with experts in the field. With
respect to internal validity, as already mentioned, there may be some bias introduced into the inclusion
criteria. Finally threats to conclusion validity are limited by the combination of several techniques.
5.2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>Conclusion and future research</title>
      <p>This paper has proposed that research on conceptual modeling has matured to a stage where it is
possible to identify its themes and transformative research. We conducted a bibliometric analysis
composed of six steps: research design, data extraction, data preparation, preliminary analysis, three
bibliometric analyses with respect to the three research questions, and interpretation. This study
considers a span from 1976 to 2022 to include many papers encompassing conceptual modeling from
journals and conference proceedings. The results show the progression of topics that emerged and could
be useful to educate the next generation of researchers and to guide future research efforts.</p>
      <p>A similar, future bibliometric analysis could be useful to researchers to identify additional
publication topics and target outlets. This research is intended to be an initial start. Further research
could help to refine the main periods identified, as well as the clustering (and possible sub-clustering)
of the literature in the conceptual modeling field. Each bibliographic analysis result would benefit from
being enriched using different research taxonomies to detect the possible specificity of certain clusters
as well as the absence of certain types of research (for example evaluation or experimentation, which
are sometimes not given a high priority in conceptual modeling research). Our efforts should be
replicable since all the relevant steps and the details of their composition are explained.
Communications; IEEE 14th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 2nd International
Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS). 2016. IEEE.
[20] Bork, D., et al. An open platform for modeling method conceptualization: the OMiLAB digital
ecosystem. 2019. Association for Information Systems.
[21] Bork, D., D. Karagiannis, and B. Pittl, A survey of modeling language specification techniques.</p>
      <p>Information Systems, 2020. 87: p. 101425.
[22] Buchmann, R.A. and A.-M. Ghiran. Serviceology-as-a-service: a knowledge-centric
interpretation. in Serviceology for Services: 5th International Conference, ICServ 2017, Vienna,
Austria, July 12-14, 2017, Proceedings 5. 2017. Springer.
[23] Bunge, M., Treatise on basic philosophy: Ontology I: the furniture of the world. Vol. 3. 1977:</p>
      <p>
        Springer Science &amp; Business Media.
[24] Burton-Jones, A. and P.N. Meso, Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test
of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research, 2006.
17(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 38-60.
[25] Ceri, S., P. Fraternali, and M. Matera, Conceptual modeling of data-intensive Web applications.
      </p>
      <p>
        IEEE Internet computing, 2002. 6(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p. 20-30.
[26] Chen, C., I.-Y. Song, and W. Zhu. Trends in conceptual modeling: Citation analysis of the ER
conference papers (1979-2005). in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the
International Society for Scientometrics and Informatrics. 2007.
[27] Chen, P.P.-S., The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM transactions
on database systems (TODS), 1976. 1(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 9-36.
[28] Chen, P.P. Thirty years of ER conferences: Milestones, achievements, and future directions. in
Conceptual Modeling-ER 2009: 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling,
Gramado, Brazil, November 9-12, 2009. Proceedings 28. 2009. Springer.
[29] Chittò, P., et al. Automatic generation of chatbots for conversational web browsing. in
Conceptual Modeling: 39th International Conference, ER 2020, Vienna, Austria, November 3–
6, 2020, Proceedings 39. 2020. Springer.
[30] Combi, C., et al. Conceptual modeling of processes and data: Connecting different perspectives.
in Conceptual Modeling: 37th International Conference, ER 2018, Xi'an, China, October 22–25,
2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[31] Cosentino, V., J.L. Cánovas Izquierdo, and J. Cabot. Metascience: An holistic approach for
research modeling. in Conceptual Modeling: 35th International Conference, ER 2016, Gifu,
Japan, November 14-17, 2016, Proceedings 35. 2016. Springer.
[32] Dalibor, M., et al. Towards a model-driven architecture for interactive digital twin cockpits. in
Conceptual Modeling: 39th International Conference, ER 2020, Vienna, Austria, November 3–
6, 2020, Proceedings. 2020. Springer.
[33] Dardenne, A., A. Van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas, Goal-directed requirements acquisition.
      </p>
      <p>
        Science of computer programming, 1993. 20(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1-2</xref>
        ): p. 3-50.
[34] de la Vega, A., et al., Mortadelo: Automatic generation of NoSQL stores from
platformindependent data models. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2020. 105: p. 455-474.
[35] De Nicola, A., M. Melchiori, and M.L. Villani, Creative design of emergency management
scenarios driven by semantics: An application to smart cities. Information Systems, 2019. 81: p.
21-48.
[36] Delcambre, L.M., et al. A reference framework for conceptual modeling. in Conceptual
Modeling: 37th International Conference, ER 2018, Xi'an, China, October 22–25, 2018,
Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[37] Eder, J., et al. Expressiveness of temporal constraints for process models. in Advances in
Conceptual Modeling: ER 2018 Workshops Emp-ER, MoBiD, MREBA, QMMQ, SCME, Xi’an,
China, October 22-25, 2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[38] Elmasri, R. and S. Navathe, Fundamentals of database systems. 1994, Benjamin/Cummings
      </p>
      <p>
        Publishing Company.
[39] Embley, D.W., B.D. Kurtz, and S.N. Woodfield, Object-oriented systems analysis: a
modeldriven approach. 1991: Yourdon Press.
[40] Embley, D.W. and B. Thalheim, Handbook of conceptual modeling: theory, practice, and
research challenges. 2012: Springer.
[41] Eriksson, O. and P.J. Ågerfalk, Speaking things into existence: Ontological foundations of
identity representation and management. Information Systems Journal, 2022. 32(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 33-60.
[42] Evermann, J. and Y. Wand, Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental
concepts. Requirements engineering, 2005. 10: p. 146-160.
[43] Fettke, P., How conceptual modeling is used. Communications of the Association for Information
      </p>
      <p>
        Systems, 2009. 25(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 43.
[44] Fill, H.-G., B. Pittl, and G. Honegger. A modeling environment for visual SWRL rules based on
the SeMFIS platform. in Designing the Digital Transformation: 12th International Conference,
DESRIST 2017, Karlsruhe, Germany, May 30–June 1, 2017, Proceedings 12. 2017. Springer.
[45] Frank, U., et al., The Research Field “Modeling Business Information Systems” Current
Challenges and Elements of a Future Research Agenda. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 2014.
56: p. 49-54.
[46] Gemino, A. and Y. Wand, Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of
mandatory and optional properties. Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering, 2005. 55(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 301-326.
[47] Giebler, C., et al. Leveraging the data lake: Current state and challenges. in Big Data Analytics
and Knowledge Discovery: 21st International Conference, DaWaK 2019, Linz, Austria, August
26–29, 2019, Proceedings 21. 2019. Springer.
[48] Gogolla, M. and U. Hohenstein, Towards a semantic view of an extended entity-relationship
model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 1991. 16(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 369-416.
[49] Gonzalez-Perez, C. and P. Martin-Rodilla. An alternative approach to metainformation
conceptualisation and use. in Conceptual Modeling: 36th International Conference, ER 2017,
Valencia, Spain, November 6–9, 2017, Proceedings 36. 2017. Springer.
[50] Gregersen, H. and C.S. Jensen, Temporal entity-relationship models-a survey. IEEE Transactions
on knowledge and data engineering, 1999. 11(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 464-497.
[51] Griffo, C., et al. Legal Power-Subjection Relations: Ontological Analysis and Modeling Pattern.
in Conceptual Modeling: 41st International Conference, ER 2022, Hyderabad, India, October
17–20, 2022, Proceedings. 2022. Springer.
[52] Gruber, T.R., A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge acquisition,
1993. 5(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 199-220.
[53] Gu, Y., V.C. Storey, and C.C. Woo. Conceptual modeling for financial investment with text
mining. in Conceptual Modeling: 34th International Conference, ER 2015, Stockholm, Sweden,
October 19-22, 2015, Proceedings 34. 2015. Springer.
[54] Guarino, N. On the semantics of ongoing and future occurrence identifiers. in Conceptual
Modeling: 36th International Conference, ER 2017, Valencia, Spain, November 6–9, 2017,
Proceedings 36. 2017. Springer.
[55] Guizzardi, G., Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. 2005.
[56] Guizzardi, G., et al. Endurant types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling: Towards OntoUML
2.0. in Conceptual Modeling: 37th International Conference, ER 2018, Xi'an, China, October 22–
25, 2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[57] Guizzardi, G., H. Herre, and G. Wagner. Towards ontological foundations for UML conceptual
models. in On the move to meaningful internet systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE:
Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE 2002 Proceedings. 2002.
      </p>
      <p>
        Springer.
[58] Guizzardi, G., et al., Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: The unified
foundational ontology (UFO) story. Applied Ontology, 2015. 10(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">3-4</xref>
        ): p. 259-271.
[59] Guizzardi, R.S. and A. Perini. Goal-oriented Decision Modeling: A Position Paper. in iSTAR@
      </p>
      <p>CAiSE. 2018.
[60] Guo, G. An active workflow method for entity-oriented data collection. in Advances in
Conceptual Modeling: ER 2018 Workshops Emp-ER, MoBiD, MREBA, QMMQ, SCME, Xi’an,
China, October 22-25, 2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[61] Hai, R., C. Quix, and D. Wang. Relaxed functional dependency discovery in heterogeneous data
lakes. in Conceptual Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER 2019, Salvador, Brazil,
November 4–7, 2019, Proceedings 38. 2019. Springer.
[62] Hammer, M. and D. Mc Leod, Database description with SDM: A semantic database model.</p>
      <p>
        ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 1981. 6(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 351-386.
[63] Härer, F. and H.-G. Fill. Past trends and future prospects in conceptual modeling-a bibliometric
analysis. in Conceptual Modeling: 39th International Conference, ER 2020, Vienna, Austria,
November 3–6, 2020, Proceedings 39. 2020. Springer.
[64] Hevner, A., et al., Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 2004. 28(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ):
p. 75-105.
[65] Hummon, N.P. and P. Dereian, Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA
theory. Social networks, 1989. 11(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 39-63.
[66] Issa, S., et al. Revealing the conceptual schemas of RDF datasets. in Advanced Information
Systems Engineering: 31st International Conference, CAiSE 2019, Rome, Italy, June 3–7, 2019,
Proceedings 31. 2019. Springer.
[67] Johannesson, P., M. Bergholtz, and O. Eriksson. Institution Aware Conceptual Modelling. in The
ER Forum 2017 and the ER 2017 Demo Track, Valencia, Spain, November 6-9, 2017. 2017.
      </p>
      <p>
        CEUR-WS. org.
[68] Kaczmarek-Heß, M. and S. De Kinderen, A multilevel model of IT platforms for the needs of
enterprise IT landscape analyses. Business &amp; Information Systems Engineering, 2017. 59: p.
315-329.
[69] Karagiannis, D. and H. Kühn. Metamodelling platforms. in EC-web. 2002. Citeseer.
[70] Kuehnel, S., S.T.-N. Trang, and S. Lindner. Conceptualization, design, and implementation of
EconBPC–A software artifact for the economic analysis of business process compliance. in
Conceptual Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER 2019, Salvador, Brazil, November 4–
7, 2019, Proceedings 38. 2019. Springer.
[71] Kuehnel, S. and A. Zasada. An approach toward the economic assessment of business process
compliance. in Advances in Conceptual Modeling: ER 2018 Workshops Emp-ER, MoBiD,
MREBA, QMMQ, SCME, Xi’an, China, October 22-25, 2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[72] Lima, L.H.C., et al., An analysis of the collaboration network of the international conference on
conceptual modeling at the age of 40. Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering, 2020. 130: p. 101866.
[73] Lindland, O.I., G. Sindre, and A. Solvberg, Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE
software, 1994. 11(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 42-49.
[74] Lu, J., et al. UDBMS: road to unification for multi-model data management. in Advances in
Conceptual Modeling: ER 2018 Workshops Emp-ER, MoBiD, MREBA, QMMQ, SCME, Xi’an,
China, October 22-25, 2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[75] Lucassen, G., et al. Visualizing user story requirements at multiple granularity levels via semantic
relatedness. in Conceptual Modeling: 35th International Conference, ER 2016, Gifu, Japan,
November 14-17, 2016, Proceedings 35. 2016. Springer.
[76] Luján-Mora, S., J. Trujillo, and I.-Y. Song, A UML profile for multidimensional modeling in
data warehouses. Data &amp; knowledge engineering, 2006. 59(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 725-769.
[77] Lukyanenko, R., et al., Representing crowd knowledge: Guidelines for conceptual modeling of
user-generated content. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2017. 18(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p. 2.
[78] March, S.T. and G.N. Allen, Toward a social ontology for conceptual modeling.
      </p>
      <p>
        Communications of the AIS, 2014. 34.
[79] Markowitz, V.M. and A. Shoshani, Representing extended entity-relationship structures in
relational databases: A modular approach. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS),
1992. 17(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 423-464.
[80] Mayr, H.C. and B. Thalheim, The triptych of conceptual modeling: A framework for a better
understanding of conceptual modeling. Software and Systems Modeling, 2021. 20(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 7-24.
[81] Molina, A.I., M.A. Redondo, and M. Ortega, A review of notations for conceptual modeling of
groupware systems. New trends on human–computer interaction: research, development, new
tools and methods, 2009: p. 75-86.
[82] Montali, M. and A. Rivkin, Db-nets: On the marriage of colored petri nets and relational
databases. Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency XII, 2017: p. 91-118.
[83] Moody, D., The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations
in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 2009. 35(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ): p. 756-779.
[84] Nguyen, H., et al. Multi-perspective comparison of business process variants based on event logs.
in Conceptual Modeling: 37th International Conference, ER 2018, Xi'an, China, October 22–25,
2018, Proceedings 37. 2018. Springer.
[85] Nwokeji, J.C., et al. Big Data ETL Implementation Approaches: A Systematic Literature Review
(P). in SEKE. 2018.
[86] Olivé, A., Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. 2007: Springer Science &amp; Business
      </p>
      <p>Media.
[87] Palacio, A.L. and Ó.P. López. Towards an effective medicine of precision by using conceptual
modelling of the genome: short paper. in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software
Engineering in Healthcare Systems. 2018.
[88] Parsons, J. and Y. Wand, Choosing classes in conceptual modeling. Communications of the</p>
      <p>
        ACM, 1997. 40(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ): p. 63-69.
[89] Parsons, J. and Y. Wand, Emancipating instances from the tyranny of classes in information
modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 2000. 25(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 228-268.
[90] Persson, O., Identifying research themes with weighted direct citation links. Journal of
      </p>
      <p>
        Informetrics, 2010. 4(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 415-422.
[91] Pichler, H., J. Eder, and M. Ciglic. Modelling processes with time-dependent control structures.
in Conceptual Modeling: 36th International Conference, ER 2017, Valencia, Spain, November
6–9, 2017, Proceedings 36. 2017. Springer.
[92] Rahm, E. and P.A. Bernstein, A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. the VLDB
      </p>
      <p>Journal, 2001. 10: p. 334-350.
[93] Ramdane, Y., et al. SkipSJoin: A new physical design for distributed big data warehouses in
hadoop. in Conceptual Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER 2019, Salvador, Brazil,
November 4–7, 2019, Proceedings 38. 2019. Springer.
[94] Recker, J., et al., Information systems as representations: A review of the theory and evidence.</p>
      <p>
        Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2019. 20(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ): p. 5.
[95] Recker, J.C., et al., From representation to mediation: a new agenda for conceptual modeling
research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 2021. 45(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 269-300.
[96] Rosemann, M. and P. Green, Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological
constructs. Information Systems, 2002. 27(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 75-91.
[97] Roy-Hubara, N., et al., Modeling graph database schema. IT Professional, 2017. 19(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ): p. 34-43.
[98] Rumbaugh, J., et al., Object-oriented modeling and design. Vol. 199. 1991: Prentice-hall
      </p>
      <p>Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[99] Rumbaugh, J., G. Booch, and I. Jacobson, The unified modeling language user guide. 1999:</p>
      <p>
        Addison-wesley.
[100] Sales, T.P. and G. Guizzardi. Ontological anti-patterns in taxonomic structures. in Proceedings
of the XII Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and III Doctoral and Masters Consortium on
Ontologies. 2019. CEUR-WS.
[101] Samuel, B.M., V. Khatri, and V. Ramesh, Exploring the effects of extensional versus intensional
representations on domain understanding. MIS Quarterly, 2018. 42(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p. 1187-1210.
[102] Shanks, G., et al., Representing classes of things and properties in general in conceptual
modelling: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 2010. 21(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p.
125.
[103] Shanks, G., et al., Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: An empirical
evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 2008: p. 553-573.
[104] Shanks, G., E. Tansley, and R. Weber, Using ontology to validate conceptual models.
      </p>
      <p>
        Communications of the ACM, 2003. 46(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ): p. 85-89.
[105] Sheth, A.P. and J.A. Larson, Federated database systems for managing distributed,
heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 1990. 22(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p.
183-236.
[106] Storey, V.C., Understanding semantic relationships. The VLDB Journal, 1993. 2: p. 455-488.
[107] Storey, V.C. and R.C. Goldstein, A methodology for creating user views in database design.
      </p>
      <p>
        ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 1988. 13(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 305-338.
[108] Teorey, T.J., D. Yang, and J.P. Fry, A logical design methodology for relational databases using
the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 1986. 18(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p.
197222.
[109] Thalheim, B., Entity-relationship modeling: foundations of database technology. 2000: Springer
      </p>
      <p>
        Science &amp; Business Media.
[110] Theodoulidis, C., P. Loucopoulos, and B. Wangler, A conceptual modelling formalism for
temporal database applications. Information Systems, 1991. 16(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p. 401-416.
[111] Thor, A., et al., Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): A program for reference
publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization. Journal of Informetrics,
2016. 10(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 503-515.
[112] Van Eck, N. and L. Waltman, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric
mapping. scientometrics, 2010. 84(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 523-538.
[113] Verdonck, M., et al., Comparing traditional conceptual modeling with ontology-driven
conceptual modeling: An empirical study. Information Systems, 2019. 81: p. 92-103.
[114] Wagner, G., R. Lukyanenko, and G. Paré, Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature
reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 2022. 37(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ): p. 209-226.
[115] Wand, Y., V.C. Storey, and R. Weber, An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in
conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 1999. 24(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p.
494528.
[116] Wand, Y. and R. Weber, An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on
      </p>
      <p>
        Software Engineering, 1990. 16(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ): p. 1282-1292.
[117] Wand, Y. and R. Weber, On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems
      </p>
      <p>
        Journal, 1995. 5(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 203-223.
[118] Wand, Y. and R. Weber, Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling—
a research agenda. Information Systems Research, 2002. 13(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ): p. 363-376.
[119] Wand, Y. and R. Weber, Thirty years later: some reflections on ontological analysis in conceptual
modeling. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 2017. 28(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ): p. 1-17.
[120] Weber, R., Conceptual modelling and ontology: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Database
      </p>
      <p>
        Management (JDM), 2003. 14(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 1-20.
[121] Wohlin, C., et al., Experimentation in software engineering. 2012: Springer Science &amp; Business
      </p>
      <p>Media.
[122] Yeshchenko, A., et al. Comprehensive process drift detection with visual analytics. in Conceptual
Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER 2019, Salvador, Brazil, November 4–7, 2019,
Proceedings 38. 2019. Springer.
[123] Yu, E.S. Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. in Proceedings of conference
on Organizational computing systems. 1995.
[124] Yu, E.S. Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. in
Proceedings of ISRE'97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.
1997. IEEE.
[125] Yu, E.S., Social Modeling and i. Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications: Essays in
honor of John Mylopoulos, 2009: p. 99-121.
[126] Zachman, J.A., A framework for information systems architecture. IBM systems journal, 1987.</p>
      <p>
        26(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 276-292.
[127] Zupic, I. and T. Čater, Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational
research methods, 2015. 18(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ): p. 429-472.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Abiteboul</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Hull</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Vianu</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Foundations of databases. Vol.
          <volume>8</volume>
          . 1995: Addison-Wesley Reading.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Aguirre-Urreta</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.I. and G.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marakas</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Comparing conceptual modeling techniques: a critical review of the EER vs. OO empirical literature</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <volume>39</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ): p.
          <fpage>9</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>32</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Al-Fedaghi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Alduwaisan</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Modeling of an enterprise and information system: process specification based on the flow of things</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Proceedings of the International Conference on Geoinformatics and Data Analysis</source>
          .
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Allen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.N. and S.T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A research note on representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling</article-title>
          .
          <source>MIS Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          : p.
          <fpage>945</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>964</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Almeida</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.P.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.M. Fonseca</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>V.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Carvalho</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A comprehensive formal theory for multilevel conceptual modeling</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Conceptual Modeling: 36th International Conference, ER</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          , Valencia, Spain, November 6-
          <issue>9</issue>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          , Proceedings 36.
          <year>2017</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Andersson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Krogstie</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Implementation and first evaluation of a molecular modeling language</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 16th International Conference, BPMDS</source>
          <year>2015</year>
          , 20th International Conference,
          <source>EMMSAD 2015, Held at CAiSE</source>
          <year>2015</year>
          , Stockholm, Sweden, June 8-9,
          <year>2015</year>
          , Proceedings.
          <year>2015</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Andreassen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.,
          <article-title>Business model innovation and value-creation: the triadic way</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Service Management</source>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Batini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Ceri</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Navathe</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Conceptual design-an entity-relationship approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>Redwood: Benjamin Cummings</source>
          ,
          <year>1992</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Batra</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hoffler</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.P.</given-names>
            <surname>Bostrom</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Comparing representations with relational and EER models</article-title>
          .
          <source>Communications of the ACM</source>
          ,
          <year>1990</year>
          .
          <volume>33</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ): p.
          <fpage>126</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>139</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Becker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>A conceptual model for digital shadows in industry and its application</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Conceptual Modeling: 40th International Conference, ER</source>
          <year>2021</year>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Virtual</given-names>
            <surname>Event</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>October 18-21</source>
          ,
          <year>2021</year>
          , Proceedings 40.
          <year>2021</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Ben</given-names>
            <surname>Hamadou</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Gallinucci</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Golfarelli</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Answering GPSJ queries in a polystore: A dataspace-based approach</article-title>
          . in Conceptual Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER 2019, Salvador, Brazil, November 4-
          <issue>7</issue>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          , Proceedings 38.
          <year>2019</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bera</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Burton-Jones</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Wand</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Improving the representation of roles in conceptual modeling: theory, method, and evidence</article-title>
          .
          <source>Requirements Engineering</source>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
          <volume>23</volume>
          : p.
          <fpage>465</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>491</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bernasconi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>Conceptual modeling for genomics: building an integrated repository of open data</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Conceptual Modeling: 36th International Conference, ER</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          , Valencia, Spain, November 6-
          <issue>9</issue>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          , Proceedings 36.
          <year>2017</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bodart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.,
          <article-title>Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems Research</source>
          ,
          <year>2001</year>
          .
          <volume>12</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ): p.
          <fpage>384</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>405</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bonifati</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>Schema validation and evolution for graph databases</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Conceptual Modeling: 38th International Conference, ER</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          , Salvador, Brazil, November 4-
          <issue>7</issue>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          , Proceedings 38.
          <year>2019</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Booch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Object oriented design with applications</article-title>
          .
          <year>1990</year>
          :
          <article-title>Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co</article-title>
          ., Inc.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Booch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.L.</given-names>
            <surname>Bryan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.G.</given-names>
            <surname>Petersen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Software engineering with Ada</article-title>
          . Vol.
          <volume>30608</volume>
          .
          <year>1994</year>
          :
          <string-name>
            <surname>Addison-Wesley Professional</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Booch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Rumbaugh</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>and I. Jacobson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>The unified modeling language reference manual</article-title>
          .
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bork</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>Using conceptual modeling to support innovation challenges in smart cities</article-title>
          .
          <source>in 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on High Performance Computing and</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>