Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Wim Laurier

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1. Example of the overall Business Ontology Taxonomy, where the object class types ‘process’ have stereo types with clear definitions Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Table 1 Example of the overall Business Ontology Taxonomy, where the object class types ‘process’ have stereo types with clear definitions Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Related Figures (10)

Table 2. Example of the overall Business Ontology Taxonomy, where the the object stereo types ‘process area’ has subtypes with clear definitions Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited
Table 2. Example of the overall Business Ontology Taxonomy, where the the object stereo types ‘process area’ has subtypes with clear definitions Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited
Figure 2. The most common process objects and artefacts that use these meta-objects Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Figure 2. The most common process objects and artefacts that use these meta-objects Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Figure 3. The Business Ontology and the relation to the objects and models class types and subtypes can be determined through the rules of the semantic relations applied within the various models/artefacts discussed in the last section. Building integrated and stan- dardized models that have the auxiliary concepts to produce the semantic richness needed by practitioners does however require fully integrated meta models. Meta models that incorporate multiple models/views use the semantic relations and their rules associated with the meta objects connectivity. This approach provides a structured mechanism that facilitates the developments of corporate (application) ontologies. For example, the link between the meta-object ‘process’ and the meta-object ‘process measure’ enables the practitioners to understand the performance expectations and measures associated with each process object it relates to. (practice, 2015) The process meta-objects shown in Table | and 2 intersect not only with multiple artefacts as illustrated in Figure 2, but also with several other relevant meta objects (e.g. organizational functions, services, risk, rules, data etc.). Consequently, they can be reused for entirely other modelling, engineering and architecture concepts besides process modelling. For example, the elicitation of risks, services and other aspects of business in several views e.g. models of business. Another example is the process meta-objects of Table | and 2 that relate to the process measure (performance indicator) meta-objects of table 6. Understanding the full semantic relations are considered an essential part for any practitioner working with and around various relevant en- terprise modelling, engineering and architecture concepts. It is also the semantic relations that created the meta model and the meta meta model, identified through the Global University Al- liance (GUA) analysis and research that provided the basis to assess the details of the business ontology, as each object that belongs to another category group can have a semantic relationship to any meta object. Consequently, a meta model specification that is missing one or more of these essential meta objects in its relationships will be considered to be malformed and incomplete. This approach is expected to provide a powerful tool to assist in the identification and capture of all relevant business aspects. As a part of our study to develop the meta model, we identified that all of the semantic relations where found in 8 groups, namely:
Figure 3. The Business Ontology and the relation to the objects and models class types and subtypes can be determined through the rules of the semantic relations applied within the various models/artefacts discussed in the last section. Building integrated and stan- dardized models that have the auxiliary concepts to produce the semantic richness needed by practitioners does however require fully integrated meta models. Meta models that incorporate multiple models/views use the semantic relations and their rules associated with the meta objects connectivity. This approach provides a structured mechanism that facilitates the developments of corporate (application) ontologies. For example, the link between the meta-object ‘process’ and the meta-object ‘process measure’ enables the practitioners to understand the performance expectations and measures associated with each process object it relates to. (practice, 2015) The process meta-objects shown in Table | and 2 intersect not only with multiple artefacts as illustrated in Figure 2, but also with several other relevant meta objects (e.g. organizational functions, services, risk, rules, data etc.). Consequently, they can be reused for entirely other modelling, engineering and architecture concepts besides process modelling. For example, the elicitation of risks, services and other aspects of business in several views e.g. models of business. Another example is the process meta-objects of Table | and 2 that relate to the process measure (performance indicator) meta-objects of table 6. Understanding the full semantic relations are considered an essential part for any practitioner working with and around various relevant en- terprise modelling, engineering and architecture concepts. It is also the semantic relations that created the meta model and the meta meta model, identified through the Global University Al- liance (GUA) analysis and research that provided the basis to assess the details of the business ontology, as each object that belongs to another category group can have a semantic relationship to any meta object. Consequently, a meta model specification that is missing one or more of these essential meta objects in its relationships will be considered to be malformed and incomplete. This approach is expected to provide a powerful tool to assist in the identification and capture of all relevant business aspects. As a part of our study to develop the meta model, we identified that all of the semantic relations where found in 8 groups, namely:
Figure 4. The Business Ontology and the relation to the objects, models and meta models
Figure 4. The Business Ontology and the relation to the objects, models and meta models
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Figure 5. Extract from the business process meta model composition attribute taxonomy
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Figure 5. Extract from the business process meta model composition attribute taxonomy
Figure 6. Extract from the business process meta model decomposition attribute taxonomy parts of which are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 for the composition and decomposition taxonomies respectively.
Figure 6. Extract from the business process meta model decomposition attribute taxonomy parts of which are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 for the composition and decomposition taxonomies respectively.
Figure 7. Example of querying in the the process meta model BUSINESS ONTOLOGY META META MODEL The Business Ontology meta meta model defines the business domain, also with its relations to information concepts like applications and technology an describes t he various Business Ontology meta models and their relations. The Business ontology meta meta model can just like the meta model be visually represented, enabling first-order logic that enab relations in the ontology to be articulated as a (class) hierarchy and each other through their object relations, the direct and indirect ini the various business concepts can be discovered. It is the vehicle by es the visualised objects and , by linking (meta) objects to errelationships in and across which the Business Ontology and Semantics foundation can be expressed in the meta meta mod el (see Figure 8). Figure 9 shows an extract from the Business Meta Meta Model with a specific zoom into
Figure 7. Example of querying in the the process meta model BUSINESS ONTOLOGY META META MODEL The Business Ontology meta meta model defines the business domain, also with its relations to information concepts like applications and technology an describes t he various Business Ontology meta models and their relations. The Business ontology meta meta model can just like the meta model be visually represented, enabling first-order logic that enab relations in the ontology to be articulated as a (class) hierarchy and each other through their object relations, the direct and indirect ini the various business concepts can be discovered. It is the vehicle by es the visualised objects and , by linking (meta) objects to errelationships in and across which the Business Ontology and Semantics foundation can be expressed in the meta meta mod el (see Figure 8). Figure 9 shows an extract from the Business Meta Meta Model with a specific zoom into
Figure 8. The business ontology levels sentation made about a process owner will only affect that object. Otherwise it would wrongly affect everything that comes under all the Process Meta Objects and the Business Layer Meta Objects and therefore to the entire meta meta model! Consequently, we have the ability to apply reasoning at multiple levels and layers i.e. business, application and technology’, of the Business Ontology and the meta meta model.
Figure 8. The business ontology levels sentation made about a process owner will only affect that object. Otherwise it would wrongly affect everything that comes under all the Process Meta Objects and the Business Layer Meta Objects and therefore to the entire meta meta model! Consequently, we have the ability to apply reasoning at multiple levels and layers i.e. business, application and technology’, of the Business Ontology and the meta meta model.
(LEAD, 2015) As the business ontology has been formalized in the OMG’s MOF referred to earlier, it can be considered a Platform Independent Model (PIM), which stresses its neutrality. By sharing knowledge within the community, practitioners have found and documented repeatable patterns for process related objects, structures as well as artifacts. This has led to the identification of cross-domain Meta Model Groups that provide additional structure to the ontol- ogy. Each of these Meta Model Groups has been formalized as a meta model that is orthogonal to the other meta-models, yet intersects with them through the meta meta model. Tha Amn LAnss ac alow AAs ARR seth. o Deseo that Lalas BHR RHE ANE Seni te
(LEAD, 2015) As the business ontology has been formalized in the OMG’s MOF referred to earlier, it can be considered a Platform Independent Model (PIM), which stresses its neutrality. By sharing knowledge within the community, practitioners have found and documented repeatable patterns for process related objects, structures as well as artifacts. This has led to the identification of cross-domain Meta Model Groups that provide additional structure to the ontol- ogy. Each of these Meta Model Groups has been formalized as a meta model that is orthogonal to the other meta-models, yet intersects with them through the meta meta model. Tha Amn LAnss ac alow AAs ARR seth. o Deseo that Lalas BHR RHE ANE Seni te
Related topics:
OntologyKnowledge ManagementSustainable BusinessProcess OntologyUpper OntologyBusiness Domain
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved