A UML and OWL description of Bunge’s upper-level ontology model | Software and Systems Modeling Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A UML and OWL description of Bunge’s upper-level ontology model

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prominent high-level ontology is that proposed by Mario Bunge. While it has been extensively used for research in IS analysis and conceptual modelling, it has not been employed in the more formal settings of semantic web research. We claim that its specification in natural language is the key inhibitor to its wider use. Consequently, this paper offers a description of this ontology in open, standardized knowledge representation formats. The ontology is described both in UML and OWL in order to address needs of both semantic web and conceptual modelling communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Guarino, N.(eds) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H., Wahlster, W. (eds.): Spinning the Semantic Web—Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kim, H.: Predicting how ontologies for the semantic web will evolve. Commun. ACM 45, 48–54 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11, 93–155 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Noy, N.F., Hafner, C.D.: The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. AI Mag. 18, 53–74 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Smith, B., Welty, C.: Ontology: Towards a new synthesis. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems, FOIS’01, October 17–19, Qgunquit, Maine (2001) iii–ix

  7. Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinto, H.S., Martins, J.P.: Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6, 441–464 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gruninger, M., Lee, J.: Ontology applications and design. Commun. ACM 45, 39–41 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holsaple, C.W., Joshi, K.: A collaborative approach to ontology design. Commun. ACM 45, 42–47 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fox, M., Grüninger, M.: Ontologies for enterprise integration. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 82–89 (1994)

  12. Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Ogunquit, Maine, pp. 2–9 (2001)

  13. Guha, R., Lenat, D.B.: Enabling agents to work together. Commmun. ACM 37, 127–142 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V., Pittman, K., Pratt, D., Shepherd, M.: CYC: toward programs with common sense. Commun. ACM 33, 30–49 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lenat, D.B.: CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun. ACM 38, 33–38 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language—W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref

  17. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuiness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability. J. Web Semant. 1, 345–357 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \({\mathcal{SHIQ}}\) and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. J. Web Semant. 1, 7–26 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A tableau decision procedure for \({\mathcal{SHOIQ}}\). J. Autom. Reason. 39, 249–276 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Bera, P., Wand, Y.: Analyzing OWL using a philosophy-based ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS, Torino (2004)

  22. Bera, P., Krasnoperova, A., Wand, Y.: Improving real-world semantics in OWL. Working paper, The Sauder School of Business at UBC (2005)

  23. Dussart, A., Aubert, B.A., Patry, M.: An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modeling formalisms. J. Database Manage. 15, 74–104 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 4–6, Tampa (2003)

  25. Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated process modelling: an ontological analysis. Inf. Syst. 25, 73–87 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Ontological analysis of integrated process models: testing hypotheses. Aust. J. Inf. Syst. 9, 30–38 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML. IEEE Trans. Data Knowl. Eng. 17, 713–725 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. In: Kunii, H., Jajodia, S., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Proceedings of ER, pp. 354–367 (2001)

  29. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: An ontological examination of object interaction in conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems WITS’01, New Orleans, December 15–16, pp. 91–96 (2001)

  30. Evermann, J.: The association construct in conceptual modelling - an analysis using the Bunge ontological model. In: Pastor, O., e Cunha, J.F.(eds) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2005, Porto, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 21–37 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Evaluating and improving OO modelling languages using the BWW-model. In: Proceedings of the Information Systems Foundation Workshop (1999). www.comp.mq.edu.au/isf99/Opdahl.htm

  33. Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B., Barbier, F.: An ontological evaluation of the OML metamodel. In: Falkenberg, E., Lyytinen, K.(eds) Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging, IFIP/Kluwer, Netherlands (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. J. Syst. Softw. 57, 119–143 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Softw. Syst. Modeling 1, 43–67 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg, E., Lingreen, P.(eds) Information System Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers BV (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inf. Syst. 3(4), 217–237 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wand, Y., Storey, V.C., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 24, 494–528 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER-2002), Tampere, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

  40. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., van Sinderen, M.: A formal theory of conceptual modeling universals. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Philosophy and Informatics (WSPI), Cologne (2004)

  41. Heller, B., Herre, H.: Ontological categories in GOL. Axiomathes 14, 57–76 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Herre, H., Heller, B., Burek, P., Hoehndorf, R., Loebe, F., Michalek, H.: General formal ontology (GFO): a foundational ontology integrating objects and processes. Part 1: Basic principles (version 1.0). Technical report, University of Leipzig, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med) (2006)

  43. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guariono, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology library, WonderWeb deliverable D18. Technical report, University of Trento Laboratory for Applied Ontology (2003)

  44. Green, P.: Use of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in combination in upper CASE tools—an ontological evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’97), pp. 1–12. Barcelon (1997)

  45. Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Applying ontologies to business and systems modelling techniques and perspectives: Lessons learned. J. Database Manage. 15, 105–117 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Herrera, S.I., Pallioto, D., Tkachuk, G., Luna, P.A.: Ontological modelling of information systems from Bunge’s contributions. In: Proceedings of the PHISE workshop, Porto, pp. 571–582 (2005)

  47. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A template for defining enterprise modelling constructs. J. Database Manage. 15, 39–73 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a meta-model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 27, 75–91 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D., Wand, Y.: Modeling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Requir. Eng. 6, 663–679 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: Goal-driven analysis of process model validity. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, pp. 521–535 (2004)

  51. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Mario Bunge’s ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts. In: Weingartner, P., Dorn, G., (eds.) Studies on Mario Bunge’s Treatise. Rodopi, Atlanta (1990)

  52. Wand, Y., Wang, R.: Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Commun. ACM 39, 86–95 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wand, Y., Monarchi, D., Parsons, J., Woo, C.: Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development. Decision Support Syst. 15, 285–304 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers and Lybrand, Melbourne (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Angeles, P.: Dictionary of Philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bunge, M.A.: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Volume 3 of Treatise On Basic Philosophy. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)

  57. Bunge, M.A.: Ontology II: A World of Systems. Volume 4 of Treatise On Basic Philosophy. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)

  58. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 384–405 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Cockcroft, S., Rowles, S.: Ontological evaluation of health models: Some early findings. In: Proceedings of the 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10–13 July, Adelaide, pp. 611–625. (2003)

  60. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts. Requir. Eng. 10(2), 146–160 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontological modelling rules for UML: an empirical assessment. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 46 (2006)

  62. Gemino, A.: Empirical Comparisons of Systems Analysis Modeling Techniques. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (1999)

  63. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modelling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 301–326 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Weber, R., Zhang, Y.: An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inf. Syst. J. 6, 147–170 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Davies, I., Green, P., Milton, S., Rosemann, M.: Using meta models for the comparison of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the EMMSAD Workshop, Velden (2003)

  66. Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology (1997). http://www.aiai.ed.uk/project/pub/documents/1998/98-ker-ent-ontology.ps.

  67. Gomez-Perez, A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Corcho, O. (eds.): Ontological Engineering. Springer, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.): Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Toronto (2002)

  70. Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: Using a semiotic framework for a comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies. IDEA Group Publishing (2004)

  71. Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the EMMSAD Workshop, Luxembourg, pp. 521–532 (2006)

  72. Object Management Group: Ontology Definition Meta-Model. Final adopted specification, Document ptc/06-10-11 (2006)

  73. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Guarino, N., van Sinderen, M.: An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advances in Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Latvia. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

  74. Heller, B., Herre, H.: Formal ontology and principles of GOL. Technical report, University of Leipzig, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med) (2003)

  75. Duric, D.: MDA-based ontology infrastructure. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. syst. 1, 91–116 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168, 70–118 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  77. Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: UML as an ontology modelling language. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 46–53. (1999)

  79. Gadamer, H.G.: Philosophical Hermeneutics. University of California Press, California (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ricoeur, P.: Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Texas Christian University Press, Fort Worth (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Boland, R.: Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research in information systems. In: Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G., Wood-Harper, T.(eds) Research Methods in Information Systems., Elsevier, Amsterdam (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Chalmers, M.: Hermeneutics, information, and representation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 13, 210–220 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Myers, M.: Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 5, 51–70 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Prasad, A.: The contest over meaning: hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organ. Res. Methods 5, 12–33 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. (2005) Document formal/05-07-04

  86. Henderson-Sellers, B., Barbier, F.: Black and white diamonds. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on the Unified Modelling Language UML 99, pp. 550–565 (1999)

  87. Flynn, D., Knight, D., Laender, A.: Multiple relationships: An analysis of their semantics and their modelling. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olive, A.(eds) Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views. IFIP/Chapman and Hall, London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Jones, T.H., Song, I.Y.: Binary equivalents of ternary relationships in entity-relationship modeling: a logical decomposition approach. J. Database Manage. 11, 12–19 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Genova, G., Llorens, J., Martinez, P.: The meaning of multiplicity of n-ary associations in UML. Softw. Syst. Model. 1, 86–97 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Demuth, B.: The Dresden OCL toolkit and its role in information systems development. In: 13th International Conference on Information Systems Development: Methods and Tools, Theory and Practice Conference, Advances in Theory, Practice, and Education (ISD’94). Vilnius, Lithuania (2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada

    Joerg Evermann

Authors
  1. Joerg Evermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joerg Evermann.

Additional information

Communicated by Prof. Heinrich Hussmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evermann, J. A UML and OWL description of Bunge’s upper-level ontology model. Softw Syst Model 8, 235–249 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-008-0082-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-008-0082-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation