Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Whirlwind Introduction to Ufo and Ontouml
Materials
Procedure
Analysis of the Ranking Results
Analysis of the Motivations for the Rankings
Limitations
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Information Systems

Automated conceptual model clustering: a relator-centric approach

Profile image of Tiago SalesTiago Sales

Software and Systems Modeling

https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-021-00919-5
visibility

…

description

25 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of reference conceptual models to capture information about complex and sensitive business domains (e.g., finance, healthcare, space). These models play a fundamental role in different types of critical semantic interoperability tasks. Therefore, domain experts must be able to understand and reason with their content. In other words, these models need to be cognitively tractable. This paper contributes to this goal by proposing a model clustering technique that leverages on the rich semantics of ontology-driven conceptual models (ODCM). In particular, we propose a formal notion of Relational Context to guide the automated clusterization (or modular breakdown) of conceptual models. Such Relational Contexts capture all the information needed for understanding entities "qua players of roles" in the scope of an objectified (reified) relationship (relator). The paper also presents computational support for automating the identification of Relational Contexts and this modular breakdown procedure. Finally, we report the results of an empirical study assessing the cognitive effectiveness of this approach. Keywords Ontology-driven conceptual modeling • Complexity management in conceptual modeling • Conceptual model clustering • OntoUML B Giancarlo Guizzardi

Related papers

Integrating techniques for conceptual modeling
Doug Skuce

Submitted to: 7th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, 1992

Our goal is to facilitate the conceptual modeling of a domain using a flexible knowledge representation schema and supporting software. To facilitate this we have built several knowledge management systems, the latest one being CODE41 (Skuce and Lethbridge 1992)(Skuce 1992c). In the rest of this introduction we describe the type of knowledge engineering we do. In section 2 we describe eight major techniques and list some properties and advantages of each technique. We analyse several of our knowledge engineering projects to see what techniques were used and with what results. We describe how CODE4 has evolved to support these techniques in a highly integrated way, and where we see room for further automated assistance. Finally, we present some some heuristics that indicate what techniques seem most appropriate to what kind of project. 1 CODE stands for Conceptually Oriented Design/Description Environment. The current version is CODE4 which in a complete redesign of CODE2. The knowledge engineering projects described in this paper have used both versions. CODE3 was an experiment that was never used for practical knowledge engineering.

View PDFchevron_right
Relations in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling
Giancarlo Guizzardi

2019

For over a decade now, a community of researchers has contributed to the ontological foundations of Conceptual Modeling by participating to the development of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and the UFO-based modeling language OntoUML, which have been successfully employed in a number of different sectors. The empirical feedback from these experiences led us to reconsider UFO's theory of relations, proposing a new theory that has already been applied to model subtle notions in the business domain, such as value, risk, service, and contract. In this paper, we advance a first formal characterization of this new theory, which is then used to design a new metamodel for OntoUML.

View PDFchevron_right
An Ontological Analysis of the relationship Con-struct in Conceptual Modelling
Veda Storey

Tods, 2001

Conceptual models or semantic data models were developed to capture the meaning of an application domain as perceived by someone. Moreover, concepts employed in semantic data models have recently been adopted in object-oriented approaches to systems analysis and design.

View PDFchevron_right
Conceptual Modeling in Specialized Knowledge Resources
Antonio San Martín, Pamela Faber

foibg.com

Conceptual modeling is the activity of formally describing aspects of the physical and social world around us for purposes of understanding and communication. The conceptual modeler thus has to determine what aspects of the real world to include, and exclude, from the model, and at what level of detail to model each aspect [Kotiadis and Robinson, 2008]. The way that this is done depends on the needs of the potential users or stakeholders, the domain to be modeled, and the objectives to be achieved. A principled set of conceptual modeling techniques are thus a vital necessity in the elaboration of resources that facilitate knowledge acquisition and understanding. In this respect, the design and creation of terminological databases for a specialized knowledge domain is extremely complex since, ideally, the data should be interconnected in a semantic network by means of an explicit set of semantic relations. Nevertheless, despite the acknowledged importance of conceptual organization in terminological resources [Puuronen, 1995], [Meyer et al., 1997], [Pozzi, 1999], [Pilke, 2001], conceptual organization does not appear to have an important role in their design. It is a fact that astonishingly few specialized knowledge resources available on Internet contain information regarding the location of concepts in larger knowledge configurations [Faber et al., 2006]. Such knowledge resources do not take into account the dynamic nature of categorization, concept storage and retrieval, and cognitive processing [Louwerse and Jeuniaux, 2010], [Aziz-Zadeh and Damasio, 2008], [Patterson et al., 2007], [Gallese and Lakoff, 2005]. Recent theories of cognition reflect the assumption that cognition is typically grounded in multiple ways, e.g. simulations, situated action, and even bodily states. This means that a specialized knowledge resource that facilitates knowledge acquisition should thus provide conceptual contexts or situations in which a concept is conceived as part of a process or event. Since knowledge acquisition and understanding requires simulation, this signifies that horizontal relations defining goal, purpose, affordance, and result of the manipulation and use of an object are just as important, if not more so, than vertical generic-specific and part-whole relations. Within the context of recent theories of cognition, this paper examines the frame-based conceptual modeling principles underlying EcoLexicon, a multilingual knowledge base of environmental concepts (http://ecolexicon.ugr.es/) [Faber et al., 2005, 2006, 2007]

View PDFchevron_right
A Common Foundational Theory for Bridging Two Levels in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling
Giancarlo Guizzardi

2013

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of Foundational Ontologies, i.e., ontological theories in the philosophical sense to provide real-world semantics and principled modeling guidelines for conceptual domain modeling languages. In this paper, we demonstrate how a philosophically sound and cognitively-oriented ontological theory of objects and moments (property-instances) has been used to: (i) (re)design a system of modeling primitives underlying the conceptual domain modeling language OntoUML; (ii) derive supporting technology for mapping these conceptual domain models to less-expressive computationally-oriented codification languages. In particular, we address here a mapping strategy to OWL (Web Ontology Language) which addresses the issue of temporally changing information.

View PDFchevron_right
Contextualization as an Abstraction Mechanism for Conceptual Modeling
Manos Theodorakis

2000

The notion of context appears in several disciplines, including com- puter science, under various forms. In this paper, we are concerned with a notion of context in the area of conceptual modeling. First, we present a simple defini- tion whereby a context is seen as a set of objects, within which each object has a set of names and possibly

View PDFchevron_right
An Analysis of Contextual Aspects of Conceptualization – A Case Study and Prospects 1
Wojciech Waloszek, Aleksander Waloszek, Krzysztof Goczyła

In the paper we present a new approach to development of modularized knowledge bases. We argue that modularization should start from the very beginning of modeling, i.e. from the conceptualization stage. To make this feasible, we propose to exploit a context-oriented, semantic approach to modularization. This approach is based on the Structural Interpretation Model (SIM) presented earlier elsewhere. In the first part of the paper we present a contextualized version of the SYNAT ontology developed using the SIM methodology. For the approach to be useful in practice, a set of tools is needed to enable a knowledge engineer to create, edit, store and perform reasoning over contextualized ontologies in a flexible and natural way. During our work on the SYNAT project, we developed such a set of tools that are based on a mathematical ground of tarset algebra (also introduced elsewhere). In the second part of the paper we give a deeper insight into some aspects of using these tools, as well as into ideas underlying their construction. The work on contextualization of knowledge bases led us to further theoretical investigation of hierarchical structure of a knowledge base systems. Indeed, in a system of heterogeneous knowledge sources, each source (a knowledge base) can be seen in its own separate context, as being a part of a higher level contextual structure (a metastructure) with its own set of context parameters. Higher levels of the knowledge hierarchy do not substantially differ from basic SIM structure, so that all context-aware services, including reasoning, can be performed. The theoretical background of this conception is presented in the third part of the paper.

View PDFchevron_right

References (57)

  1. Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I.: Entity-relationship and object- oriented model automatic clustering. Data Knowl. Eng. 20(2), 87-117 (1996)
  2. Algergawy, A., Babalou, S., Klan, F., König-Ries, B.: Ontology modularization with OAPT. J. Data Semant. 9(2), 53-83 (2020)
  3. Allen, G.N., March, S.T.: The effects of state-based and event- based data representation on user performance in query formulation tasks. MIS Q. 30, 269-290 (2006)
  4. Almeida, J.P.A., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G.: Events as entities in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: Laender, A.H.F., Pernici, B., Lim, E.P., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2019, pp. 469-483. Springer, Cham (2019)
  5. Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Sales, T.P.: gUFO: a lightweight implementation of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). http://purl.org/nemo/doc/gufo
  6. Amato, F., De Santo, A., Moscato, V., Persia, F., Picariello, A., Poccia, S.R.: Partitioning of ontologies driven by a structure-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 9th International Con- ference on Semantic Computing (IEEE ICSC 2015), pp. 320-323. IEEE (2015)
  7. Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25(1), 25-29 (2000)
  8. Baldoni, M., Boella, G., van der Torre, I.L.: Interaction between objects in powerJava. J. Object Technol. 6(2), 7-12 (2003)
  9. Bennett, M.: The financial industry business ontology: best practice for big data. J. Bank. Regul. 14(3), 255-268 (2013)
  10. Biddle, B.J.: Recent developments in role theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 12(1), 67-92 (1986)
  11. Bork, D., Garmendia, A., Wimmer, M.: Towards a multi-objective modularization approach for entity-relationship models. In: ER Forum, Demo and Posters 2020, pp. 45-58. CEUR-WS (2020)
  12. Castano, S., De Antonellis, V., Fugini, M.G., Pernici, B.: Concep- tual schema analysis: techniques and applications. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 23(3), 286-333 (1998)
  13. Chen, J., Alghamdi, G., Schmidt, R.A., Walther, D., Gao, Y.: Ontol- ogy extraction for large ontologies via modularity and forgetting. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowl- edge Capture, pp. 45-52 (2019)
  14. Detoni, A.A., Miranda, G.M., Renault, L.D., Falbo, R.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Barcellos, M.P.: Exploring the role of enter- prise architecture models in the modularization of an ontology network: a case in the public security domain. In: 2017 IEEE 21st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 117-126. IEEE (2017)
  15. El Ghosh, M., Naja, H., Abdulrab, H., Khalil, M.: Application of ontology modularization for building a criminal domain ontology. In: AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems, pp. 394- 409. Springer (2015)
  16. Feldman, P., Miller, D.: Entity model clustering: structuring a data model by abstraction. Comput. J. 29(4), 348-360 (1986)
  17. Figueiredo, G., Duchardt, A., Hedblom, M.M., Guizzardi, G.: Breaking into pieces: an ontological approach to conceptual model complexity management. In: 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1-10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/rcis.2018.8406642
  18. Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics. In: Geeraerts, D. (ed.) Cognitive linguistics: basic readings, pp. 373-400. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2006). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373
  19. Francalanci, C., Pernici, B.: Abstraction levels for entity- relationship schemas. In: Proceedings of 13th ER, pp. 456-473. Springer (1994)
  20. Garcia, A.C., Tiveron, L., Justel, C.M., Cavalcanti, M.C.: Apply- ing graph partitioning techniques to modularize large ontologies. In: Joint V Seminar on Ontology Research in Brazil and VII International Workshop on Metamodels, Ontologies and Seman- tic Technologies. ONTOBRAS-MOST 2012, vol. 938, pp. 72-83. CEUR-WS (2012)
  21. Gonçalves, B., Guizzardi, G., Pereira Filho, J.G.: Using an ECG reference ontology for semantic interoperability of ECG data. J. Biomed. Inform. 44(1), 126-136 (2011)
  22. Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: "We need to discuss the relationship": revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) Advanced Information Sys- tems Engineering, pp. 279-294. Springer, Cham (2015)
  23. Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships and events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 237-249. Springer (2016)
  24. Guidoni, G.L., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Transformation of ontology-based conceptual models into relational schemas. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 315-330. Springer (2020)
  25. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (2005)
  26. Guizzardi, G.: Objects and events in context. In: 11th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT). Keynote Speech (2019)
  27. Guizzardi, G., Figueiredo, G., Hedblom, M.M., Poels, G.: Ontology-based model abstraction. In: 2019 13th Interna- tional Conference on Research Challenges in Information Sci- ence (RCIS), pp. 1-13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/rcis.2019. 8876971
  28. Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C.M., Almeida, J.P.A., Sales, T.P., Bene- vides, A.B., Porello, D.: Types and taxonomic structures in conceptual modeling: a novel ontological theory and engineering support. Data Knowl. Eng. 134, 101,891 (2021)
  29. Guizzardi, G., Guarino, N., Almeida, J.P.A.: Ontological consider- ations about the representation of events and endurants in business models. In: International Conference on Business Process Man- agement, pp. 20-36. Springer (2016)
  30. Guizzardi, G., Sales, T.P., Almeida, J.P.A., Poels, G.: Relational contexts and conceptual model clustering. In: IFIP Working Con- ference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 211-227. Springer (2020)
  31. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: What's in a relationship: an ontological analysis. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 83-97. Springer (2008)
  32. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, R.: Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) story. Appl. Ontol. 10(3-4), 259- 271 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-150157
  33. Hitzler, P., Shimizu, C.: Modular ontologies as a bridge between human conceptualization and data. In: International Conference on Conceptual Structures, pp. 3-6. Springer (2018)
  34. Lankhorst, M., et al.: Viewpoints and visualisation. In: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis, pp. 171-214. Springer (2017)
  35. Lozano, J., Carbonera, J., Abel, M., Pimenta, M.: Ontology view extraction: an approach based on ontological meta-properties. In: 2014 IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Arti- ficial Intelligence, pp. 122-129 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ictai.2014.28
  36. Lozano, J., Carbonera, J.L., Abel, M.: A novel approach for extract- ing well-founded ontology views. In: Papini et al. (ed.) Joint Ontology Workshops 2015, vol. 1517. CEUR-WS (2015)
  37. Moody, D.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756-779 (2009)
  38. Moody, D.L., Flitman, A.: A methodology for clustering entity relationship models: a human information processing approach. In: Proceedings of 18th ER, pp. 114-130. Springer (1999)
  39. Moody, D.L., Flitman, A.R.: A decomposition method for entity relationship models: a systems theoretic approach. In: Altmann, G., Lamp, J., Love, P., Mandal, P., Smith, R., Warren, M. (eds.) International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. ICSTM2000, vol. 72 (2000)
  40. Olivé, A., Raventós, R.: Modeling events as entities in object- oriented conceptual modeling languages. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 243-262 (2006)
  41. Özacar, T., Öztürk, Ö., Ünalır, M.O.: ANEMONE: an environment for modular ontology development. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(6), 504- 526 (2011)
  42. Pezoa, F., Reutter, J.L., Suarez, F., Ugarte, M., Vrgoč, D.: Foun- dations of JSON schema. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 263-273. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2016). https://doi. org/10.1145/2872427.2883029
  43. Ruy, F.B., Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Reginato, C.C., Santos, V.A.: From reference ontologies to ontology patterns and back. Data Knowl. Eng. 109, 41-69 (2017)
  44. Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G.: Ontological anti-patterns: empirically uncovered error-prone structures in ontology-driven conceptual models. Data Knowl. Eng. 99, 72-104 (2015)
  45. Snoeck, M.: Enterprise Information Systems Engineering: The MERODE Approach. Springer, Berlin (2014)
  46. Teixeira, M.: An ontology-based process for domain-specific visual language design. Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil/Ghent University, Belgium (2016)
  47. Tzitzikas, Y., Hainaut, J.L.: How to tame a very large ER dia- gram (using link analysis and force-directed drawing algorithms). In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2005, pp. 144-159. Springer, Berlin (2005)
  48. Tzitzikas, Y., Kotzinos, D., Theoharis, Y.: On ranking RDF schema elements (and its application in visualization). J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 13(12), 1854-1880 (2007)
  49. Verdonck, M., Gailly, F.: Insights on the use and application of ontology and conceptual modeling languages in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of 35th ER (2016)
  50. Verdonck, M., Gailly, F., Pergl, R., Guizzardi, G., Martins, B., Pas- tor, O.: Comparing traditional conceptual modeling with ontology- driven conceptual modeling?: An empirical study. Inf. Syst. 81, 92-103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2018.11.009
  51. Villegas Niño, A.: A filtering engine for large conceptual schemas. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2013)
  52. W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3C recommendation 11 December 2012 (2012). https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  53. Weber, B.: The impact of modularization on the understandability of declarative process models: a research model. In: Information Systems and Neuroscience, p. 133 (2020)
  54. Wieringa, R., de Jonge, W., Spruit, P.: Using dynamic classes and role classes to model object migration. Theory Pract. Object Syst. 1(1), 61-83 (1995)
  55. Winter, M., Pryss, R., Probst, T., Baß, J., Reichert, M.: Measuring the cognitive complexity in the comprehension of modular process models. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Develop. Syst. (2020). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TCDS.2020.3032730
  56. Xiao, G., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Lembo, D., Poggi, A., Rosati, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: Ontology-based data access: a sur- vey. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pp. 5511-5519 (2018). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/777
  57. Zambon, E., Guizzardi, G.: Formal definition of a general ontology pattern language using a graph grammar. In: 2017 Federated Con- ference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), IEEE pp. 1-10 (2017)

Related papers

Relational Contexts and Conceptual Model Clustering
Giancarlo Guizzardi

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of reference conceptual models to capture information about complex and sensitive business domains (e.g., finance, healthcare, space). These models play a fundamental role in different types of critical semantic interoperability tasks. Therefore , it is essential that domain experts are able to understand and reason with their content. In other words, it is important for these reference conceptual models to be cognitively tractable. This paper contributes to this goal by proposing a model clustering technique that leverages the rich semantics of ontology-driven conceptual models (ODCM). In particular, the technique employs the notion of Relational Context to guide automated model breakdown. Such Relational Contexts capture all the information needed for understanding entities "qua players of roles" in the scope of an objectified (reified) relationship (relator).

View PDFchevron_right
Breaking into Pieces: An Ontological Approach to Conceptual Model Complexity Management
Amelie Duchardt, Guylerme Figueiredo, Giancarlo Guizzardi

—In recent years, there has been a growth in the use of reference conceptual models, in general, and domain ontologies, in particular, to capture information about complex and critical domains. These models play a fundamental role in different types of critical semantic interoperability tasks. Therefore, it is essential that domain experts are able to understand and reason using the models' content. In other words, it is important that conceptual models are cognitively tractable. However, it is unavoidable that when the information of the represented domain grows, so does the size and complexity of the artifacts and models that represent them. For this reason, more sophisticated techniques for complexity management in ontology-driven conceptual models, need to be developed. Some approaches are based on the notion of model modularization. In this paper, we follow the work on model modularization to present an approach for view extraction for the ontology-driven conceptual modeling language OntoUML. We provide a formal definition for ontological views over OntoUML conceptual models that completely leverages on the ontologically well-grounded real-world semantics of that language. Moreover, we present a plug-in tool, particularly developed for an OntoUML model-based editor that implements this formal view structure in terms of queries defined over the OntoUML metamodel embedded in that tool.

View PDFchevron_right
Abstracting Ontology-Driven Conceptual Models: Objects, Aspects, Events, and their Parts
Giancarlo Guizzardi

International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2022

Ontology-driven conceptual models are widely used to capture information about complex and critical domains. Therefore, it is essential for these models to be comprehensible and cognitively tractable. Over the years, different techniques for complexity management in conceptual models have been suggested. Among these, a prominent strategy is model abstraction. This work extends an existing strategy for model abstraction of OntoUML models that proposes a set of graph-rewriting rules leveraging on the ontological semantics of that language. That original work, however, only addresses a set of the ontological notions covered in that language. We review and extend that rule set to cover more generally types of objects, aspects, events, and their parts.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards an Ontology for Conceptual Modeling
Deborah L. McGuinness

2011

Abstract. Conceptual modeling can be viewed as a way of expressing human understanding of a body of knowledge. This view can be viewed as distinct from standard notions of data modeling and ontology, which seek to directly describe data and reality. We define our notion of conceptual interoperability, give use cases and requirements for it, and introduce the Conceptual Model Ontology (CMO), which satisfies the discussed use cases and requirements.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic techniques for enabling knowledge reuse in conceptual modelling
Esther Lozano

The Semantic Web– …, 2010

Conceptual modelling tools allow users to construct formal representations of their conceptualisations. These models are typically developed in isolation, unrelated to other user models, thus losing the opportunity of incorporating knowledge from other existing models or ontologies that might enrich the modelling process. We propose to apply Semantic Web techniques to the context of conceptual modelling (more particularly to the domain of qualitative reasoning), to smoothly interconnect conceptual models created by different users, thus facilitating the global sharing of scientific data contained in such models and creating new learning opportunities for people who start modelling. This paper describes how semantic grounding techniques can be used during the creation of qualitative reasoning models, to bridge the gap between the imprecise user terminology and a well defined external common vocabulary. We also explore the application of ontology matching techniques between models, which can provide valuable feedback during the model construction process.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Information Systems

    • Cited by

    Conceptual modelling for life sciences based on systemist foundations
    Roman Lukyanenko

    BMC Bioinformatics

    Background All aspects of our society, including the life sciences, need a mechanism for people working within them to represent the concepts they employ to carry out their research. For the information systems being designed and developed to support researchers and scientists in conducting their work, conceptual models of the relevant domains are usually designed as both blueprints for a system being developed and as a means of communication between the designer and developer. Most conceptual modelling concepts are generic in the sense that they are applied with the same understanding across many applications. Problems in the life sciences, however, are especially complex and important, because they deal with humans, their well-being, and their interactions with the environment as well as other organisms. Results This work proposes a “systemist” perspective for creating a conceptual model of a life scientist’s problem. We introduce the notion of a system and then show how it can be...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved