Fig 5 - uploaded by Giancarlo Guizzardi
Content may be subject to copyright.
Download
View publication
Conceptions involved in domain modeling conception, in which case (for the observer) they are equivalent models of the same domain (for the same purpose). If the observer is "the modeler", i.e. the person creating the model, they also need to "shape" the model in such a way that it best matches their desired model-conception. What is not shown explicitly in figure 5 is the fact that the normative frames as discussed in the previous section, influence the way an observer creates (and aligns) the four conceptions shown in figure 5. This specifically also includes the modeling languages we use. Even more, when the observer has an explicit understanding of the normative frames they (consciously or unconsciously) use, these understandings lead to conceptualizations in themselves. For instance, a conceptualization of (their understanding of) the DEMO method or the ArchiMate modeling language. Returning briefly to the discussion above, where we limited our understanding of models only, i.e., leaving out what the MU-theory suggests to refer to as "conceptual complexes", we can now observe that both abstraction-conception and modelconception are "conceptual complexes" in terms of the MU-theory.

Conceptions involved in domain modeling conception, in which case (for the observer) they are equivalent models of the same domain (for the same purpose). If the observer is "the modeler", i.e. the person creating the model, they also need to "shape" the model in such a way that it best matches their desired model-conception. What is not shown explicitly in figure 5 is the fact that the normative frames as discussed in the previous section, influence the way an observer creates (and aligns) the four conceptions shown in figure 5. This specifically also includes the modeling languages we use. Even more, when the observer has an explicit understanding of the normative frames they (consciously or unconsciously) use, these understandings lead to conceptualizations in themselves. For instance, a conceptualization of (their understanding of) the DEMO method or the ArchiMate modeling language. Returning briefly to the discussion above, where we limited our understanding of models only, i.e., leaving out what the MU-theory suggests to refer to as "conceptual complexes", we can now observe that both abstraction-conception and modelconception are "conceptual complexes" in terms of the MU-theory.

Source publication
Fig. 1. Ogden and Richard's semiotic triangle [56]
Fig. 2. Writer and Reader with their own semiotic triangles
Fig. 3. High level construction model of pizzeria "Perla del Nord"
Fig. 4. Alternative ways to capture models of the pizzeria 11,12
Fig. 5. Conceptions involved in domain modeling conception, in which...
On Domain Conceptualization
Conference Paper
Full-text available
  • Dec 2020
The growing role of models across the life-cycle of enterprises, and their information and software systems, fuels the need for a more fundamental reflection on the foundations of modeling. Two of the core theories of the discipline of enterprise engineering (Factual Information (FI) theory and the Model Universe (MU) theory) aim at contributing to...
Cite
Download full-text

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... the conception of the purpose for the model the domain involves the possible purposes for modeling the domain to be modeled. Figure 5 provides an overview of the involved conceptions, where the conception of the purpose modifies the abstraction(s) and the alignment between the conceptions of the model and the desired abstraction. We should also not forget that the (normative) frames as discussed in the previous section influence the formation of all four conceptions. ...
Context 2
... is not shown explicitly in figure 5 is the fact that the normative frames as discussed in the previous section, influence the way an observer creates (and aligns) the four conceptions shown in figure 5. This specifically also includes the modeling languages we use. ...
Context 3
... is not shown explicitly in figure 5 is the fact that the normative frames as discussed in the previous section, influence the way an observer creates (and aligns) the four conceptions shown in figure 5. This specifically also includes the modeling languages we use. ...

Similar publications

Fig. 1. Ogden and Richard's semiotic triangle [56]
Fig. 2. Writer and Reader with their own semiotic triangles
Fig. 3. High level construction model of pizzeria "Perla del Nord"
Fig. 4. Alternative ways to capture models of the pizzeria 11,12
Fig. 5. Conceptions involved in domain modeling conception, in which...
On Domain Conceptualization
Chapter
Full-text available
  • Apr 2021
The growing role of models across the life-cycle of enterprises, and their information and software systems, fuels the need for a more fundamental reflection on the foundations of modeling. Two of the core theories of the discipline of enterprise engineering (Factual Information (FI) theory and the Model Universe (MU) theory) aim at contributing to...
View

Citations

... In particular, in computer science people use symbolic models to represent their assumptions about a certain domain. These are termed conceptual models [1,2]. A widespread requirement for conceptual models, and models in general, is that they need to have some kind of formal semantics in order to be used, and especially in order to be shared. ...
... In order to understand the story in this cartoon, one needs to understand (at least) that: (1) ham, bacon and sausage are man-made food products that are constituted by quantities of pork, i.e., pig's meat; (2) quantities (in the technical sense of [10], i.e., amounts of matter) of pork bear a historical dependence relation to individuals of the type Pig [11]; (3) Maurice and his swine friends are instances of the type Pig. In other words, one needs to understand a system of entities (types, individuals) and relations (e.g., of parthood, historical dependence, instantiation) [11,12] that exist out there in the world, i.e., beyond the descriptions and utterances we can make about this part of This ontology (of pork, pork products, pigs, etc.) reflects a semantic domain that is somehow anchored to the 'real' world, or at least to the ordinary world as filtered and organized by human perception and cognition. ...
Semantics, Ontology and Explanation
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Apr 2023
The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.
View