IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v27y2016i2p365-382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Clarke

    (School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1PB, United Kingdom)

  • Andrew Burton-Jones

    (UQ Business School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia)

  • Ron Weber

    (UQ Business School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; and Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia)

Abstract

A core activity in information systems development involves building a conceptual model of the domain that an information system is intended to support. Such models are created using a conceptual-modeling (CM) grammar. Just as high-quality conceptual models facilitate high-quality systems development, high-quality CM grammars facilitate high-quality CM. This paper provides a new perspective on ways to improve the quality of the semantics of CM grammars. For many years, the leading approach to this topic has relied on ontological theory. We show, however, that the ontological approach captures only half the story; it needs to be coupled with a logical approach. We explain how the ontological and logical qualities of CM grammars interrelate. Furthermore, we outline three contributions of a logical approach to evaluating the quality of CM grammars: a means of seeing some familiar CM problems in simpler ways, illumination of new problems, and proving the benefit of modifying existing CM grammars in particular ways. We demonstrate these benefits in the context of the Entity-Relationship grammar. More generally, our paper opens a new area of research with many opportunities for future research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Clarke & Andrew Burton-Jones & Ron Weber, 2016. "On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 365-382, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:365-382
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2016.0631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0631
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2016.0631?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Bodart & Arvind Patel & Marc Sim & Ron Weber, 2001. "Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 384-405, December.
    2. Frederico Fonseca, 2007. "The double role of ontologies in information science research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(6), pages 786-793, April.
    3. Faiz Currim & Sudha Ram, 2012. "Modeling Spatial and Temporal Set-Based Constraints During Conceptual Database Design," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-128, March.
    4. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hemant Jain & Balaji Padmanabhan & Paul A. Pavlou & T. S. Raghu, 2021. "Editorial for the Special Section on Humans, Algorithms, and Augmented Intelligence: The Future of Work, Organizations, and Society," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 675-687, September.
    2. Guest Editors: Hemant Jain & Balaji Padmanabhan & Paul A. Pavlou & Raghu T. Santanam, 2018. "all for Papers—Special Issue of Information Systems Research —Humans, Algorithms, and Augmented Intelligence: The Future of Work, Organizations, and Society," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 250-251, March.
    3. Kazem Haki & Michael Blaschke & Stephan Aier & Robert Winter, 2019. "A Value Co-creation Perspective on Information Systems Analysis and Design," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(4), pages 487-502, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.
    2. Pedro Antunes & Nguyen Hoang Thuan & David Johnstone, 2022. "Nature and purpose of visual artifacts in design science research," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 515-550, September.
    3. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    4. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 0. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-42.
    5. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    6. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    7. Paul L. Bowen & Robert A. O'Farrell & Fiona H. Rohde, 2009. "An Empirical Investigation of End-User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness vs. Complexity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 565-584, December.
    8. Alain Mouttham & Craig Kuziemsky & Dishant Langayan & Liam Peyton & Jose Pereira, 2012. "Interoperable support for collaborative, mobile, and accessible health care," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 73-85, March.
    9. Boot, Walter R. & Dunn, Cheryl L. & Fulmer, Bachman P. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2022. "An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    10. Palash Bera, 2021. "Interactions between Analysts in Developing Collaborative Conceptual Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-573, June.
    11. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    12. Andrew Burton-Jones & Peter N. Meso, 2006. "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 38-60, March.
    13. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    14. Merete Hvalshagen & Roman Lukyanenko & Binny M. Samuel, 2023. "Empowering Users with Narratives: Examining the Efficacy of Narratives for Understanding Data-Oriented Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 890-909, September.
    15. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "User Comprehension of Accounting Information Structures: An Empirical Test of the REA Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/254, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    16. Roman Lukyanenko & Wolfgang Maass & Veda C. Storey, 2022. "Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging research opportunities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1993-2020, December.
    17. Oktay Turetken & Ahmet Dikici & Irene Vanderfeesten & Tessa Rompen & Onur Demirors, 2020. "The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 121-141, April.
    18. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    19. Robert Joseph Skovira, 2012. "Japanese Way, Western Way: Two Narratives of KnowledgeManagement," Knowledge and Learning: Global Empowerment; Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference 2012,, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia.
    20. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 2020. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1377-1418, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:365-382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.