forked from software-engineering-amsterdam/latex
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
ch-back.tex
46 lines (36 loc) · 3.31 KB
/
ch-back.tex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
% !TEX root = thesis.tex
\chapter{Background}
\label{sec:background}
This chapter provides background information for concepts used in the thesis.
First, a brief definition of ontologies is presented and the main constructs
of the Bunge-Wand-Weber are listed. Second, the concept of ontological
analysis is introduced and the main types of ontological discrepancies are
defined.
\section{Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology}
\input{tab-bww}
A \textbf{conceptualization} is an abstract, simplified view of the world that is represented for
some purpose~\cite{gruber1995toward}. It consists of the concepts that are assumed to exist in some
area of interest and their relationships~\cite{gruber1995toward}. An \textbf{ontology} is an
explicit specification of a conceptualization~\cite{gruber1995toward}. It describes what is
fundamental in the totality of what exists and it defines the most general categories to which we
need to refer in constructing a description of reality~\cite{milton2004top}.
Researchers distinguish between different kinds of ontologies. For example,
based on the specificity of their constructs ontologies can be top-level and
domain-specific~\cite{milton2004top}. Ontologies of the former type are
highly general and provide the theoretical foundations for representation and
modeling of systems. Ontologies of the latter type define concepts and their
relations only for a particular domain. A domain-specific ontology is based on
a specific top-level ontology if it uses the categories defined by the high
level ontology~\cite{milton2004top}.
The Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW) ontology~\cite{wand1990ontological} is a high-level ontology used in the
representation model developed by Wand and Weber~\cite{wand1995deep}. \autoref{tab:bwwmodel}
presents a selected set of the ontological constructs in the BWW ontology.
\section{Ontological analysis}
\textbf{Ontological analysis} is an established approach for evaluating the quality of software engineering notations~\cite{moody2009physics}. It consists of a two way comparison between a set of modeling grammar constructs and a set of ontological constructs. The \textbf{interpretation mapping} compares the notation with the ontology and the \textbf{representation mapping} compares the ontology with the notation~\cite{gehlert2007toward}. The underpinning of ontological analysis is that modeling grammars are incomplete if they are not able to represent what exists in reality~\cite{green2000integrated}. Furthermore, the analysis requires one-to-one mapping between the modeling grammar and the ontological constructs. Any deviation from such correspondence leads to a discrepancy (\autoref{fig:ontoanalysis}).
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\caption{Ontological Analysis~\cite[p.92]{Weber1997}}
\label{fig:ontoanalysis}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{ontoanalysis.pdf}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Construct deficit} occurs when an ontological construct does not have a corresponding construct in the modeling grammar. \textbf{Construct redundancy} is observed when a single ontological construct maps to more than one modeling grammar construct. \textbf{Construct overload} appears when a modeling grammar construct corresponds to more than one ontological construct. \textbf{Construct excess} emerges when a modeling grammar construct does not map to any ontological construct.~\cite{moody2009physics}