65

Automated Semantic Analyses of Conceptual Models

Jörg Becker, Daniel Pfeiffer

European Research Center for Information Systems, Leonardo-Campus 3,

48149 Münster, Germany
{becker, pfeiffer}@ercis.de

Abstract. Conceptual models are an important repository for knowledge in

companies and public institutions. The retrieval of this knowledge can prepare
reorganisations projects and support IT investment decisions. However, so far
this information source has hardly been utilized in automated analyses. We
argue that if modelling grammars are endowed with specific characteristics the
semantics of the resulting models can be analysed in an automated manner.
Based on the conceptual modelling grammar PICTURE we demonstrate that
knowledge retrieval with conceptual models is facilitated.

Keywords: Model Comparison, Domain Specific Grammars, Conceptual

Modelling, PICTURE.

1 Conceptual Models and Analysis Operations

Conceptual models are an important knowledge source for managerial decisions.

They can contain information about the business processes, the resulting products and
services, the data structures, or involved organisational units [1-3]. A detailed analysis
of conceptual models can, therefore, help to asses and improve the efficiency of an
organisation. However, actually semantic analyses of conceptual models are mainly
performed manually with high personnel and financial efforts.
Although, automated semantic analyses could significantly improve the value of
conceptual models in practice they have not established yet. The reasons for this
situation lay in the complexity of the endeavour. An automated semantic analysis of
conceptual models faces the following problems:
1. Conceptual models which are incorporated in an analysis must have been created
by following the same modelling rules in order to minimize variations. For a
successful automated evaluation it is crucial that the models use the same domain
vocabulary and exhibit an equal grade of abstraction as well as a comparable level
of detail. Consequently, there must be detailed rules which ensure that modellers
describe a certain domain in a similar form. However, existing modelling
grammars do not sufficiently restrict the modeller [4].
2. Semantic conflicts in the models must be resolved. To perform semantic analyses in
an automated manner the models must be searched for certain reoccurring
structural patterns. The semantic aspects of these patterns must be considered in
order to yield meaningful results. Thus, defects such as synonym and homonym
66

conflicts in the models must be addressed. This cannot be done in a fully

automated form since conceptual models are not sufficiently formalized. A semi-
automatic approach, however, leads to significant efforts [5].
3. The modelling grammar must allow for the specification of semantically
meaningful analysis operations. It has to support a level of detail as well as a
proximity to the domain which complies with a subsequent analysis. Hence,
modelling grammars and the analysis mechanism must comply with each other. If
for example the modelling grammar does not support the annotation of
organisational units the identification of “Ping Pong”-processes (alternate between
different organisational units multiple times) is not possible. Common modelling
grammars are not designed to support analysis operations.
Semantic analyses of conceptual models in an automated manner require specific
modelling grammar characteristics. To perform an analysis with models that exhibit
an arbitrary structure hampers the identification of semantically meaningful results.
The aim of this paper is to show which modelling grammar characteristics are
required, in order to identify semantically relevant model elements in an automated
manner. We will explain how these grammar properties foster the retrieval of
significant knowledge for reorganisation and IT investment decisions.

2 Grammar Characteristics for an Automated Analysis

A modelling grammar and the corresponding modelling process must ensure the
following characteristics in order to significantly simplify analytical operations on the
resulting models [6]:
D1 All constructs of the modelling grammar must be semantically disjoint.
D2 The resulting models must not contain different domain statements
with the same meaning as labels of model elements (no synonyms).
D3 No construct of the modelling grammar is permitted to have more than
one meaning (no homonyms).
D4 The resulting models must not contain domain statements as labels of
model elements that have more than one meaning (no homonyms).
Conditions D1 and D3 refer to the modelling grammar. As the modelling grammar
is an artificial artefact created by a method engineer, it can be freely modified.
Constraints D2 and D4, however, bear on the domain language. The domain language
is naturally grown and cannot be easily adjusted as it is the shared property of a
language community. The language community decides on how this language is used.
One possibility to cope with this problem is to employ a domain ontology in which all
homonyms and synonyms are eliminated [7]. Then, it is necessary to oblige the
modeller by additional rules or tool support to apply the ontology to label the model
elements and not to use any other domain vocabulary.
However, there is an alterative approach to meet the conditions D2 and D4. The
relevant domain language statements can be transformed into constructs of the
modelling grammar [8]. A domain specific grammar emerges. Now, the modeller
must not use domain statements at all but is limited to the constructs of the modelling
grammar. The drawback of this modification is that the modelling grammar loses the
 67

flexibility to be used in an arbitrary domain but is now rather specific to a particular

knowledge area. However, this solution provides the following advantages:
1. Abstraction conflicts are avoided. Condition D1 is stricter than constraint D2, as
D2 just demands for the elimination of synonyms within the domain language but
D1 additionally requires the modelling constructs to be semantically disjoint. Thus,
it is not possible to have more general and more specific modelling constructs.
There cannot be two differently abstract constructs as they must be semantically
disjoint. Therefore, the constraint D1 prevents abstraction conflicts. If the
modelling grammar is declared as mandatory in a certain project, modellers are
forced to represent the reality in an identically abstract manner.
2. Semantic analysis operations can be defined at the design time of the CMG. When
domain statements become constructs of the modelling grammar, the modelling
grammar does not only provide measures to structure the domain but also it is
sufficient to describe it. The use of additional statements from a domain language
is no longer required. With a multi-purpose grammar the domain specific terms are
not part of the modelling grammar but are added when the conceptual model is
constructed. Thus, multi-purpose grammars allow for the definition of semantic
analysis operations after the models have been constructed. However, with domain
specific grammars this can already be done at the design time of the grammar as
the domain statements are part of it. Although, domain specific modelling
grammars are overall less general than multi-purpose grammars, from the
perspective of their semantic operations, they are more widely reusable. For
example, an UML diagram can be examined for how many activities it comprises.
This is no domain specific analysis though. Alternatively, suppose a domain
specific grammar with the construct “Enter data into IT”. With this grammar it is
possible to count how often paper documents are digitised. Hence, consequences
for the introduction of a document management system can be derived. With UML
such an analysis could be defined based on a set of existing models but not with the
grammar alone. Moreover, contrary to the domain specific grammar with UML the
conflicts C1-C4 had to be addressed. A domain specific grammar that exhibits the
characteristics D1 and D3 addresses the before mentioned problems and thus
allows for an analysis of the resulting conceptual models in an automated form [6].

3. Evaluation and Future Research

PICTURE is a domain specific grammar for the efficient representation of the

process landscape in public administrations [9]. With PICTURE processes are
modelled as a sequential flow of domain specific process building blocks. A process
building block represents a predefined set of activities within an administrational
process. The semantics of a process building block is specified by a corresponding
domain statement which is part of the modelling grammar. The PICTURE-grammar
has been constructed in consideration of the conditions D1 and D3. It has been strived
for a set of modelling constructs whose members are semantically disjoint (cf. D1)
and do not comprise homonyms (cf. D3). The constructs have been chosen based on
an analysis of existing process models from the public administration domain and an
evaluation of electronic government literature. As all PICTURE-constructs
correspond with language statements from the public sector, they are domain specific.
68

So far in two large case studies 21 modellers have collected more than 330 processes
with PICTURE. In these two projects, the acquisition of the processes took
significantly less time than with traditional modelling approaches and reorganisation
proposals could be derived in an automated manner [9].
The perspective of the paper is not to take conceptual models as given when they
are analysed. Rather, we have argued that if the modelling grammar complies with
certain rules then a semantic analysis process can be noticeably simplified. The
consequence is that the models are not created for a single purpose anymore but have
a lifecycle in which they are modified and extended to keep up with the changes in
the environment. The definition of operations on conceptual models like
transformation, integration or search helps to address this issue [10]. It is due to
further research to evaluate how the proposed grammar characteristics influence these
semantic operations.

Acknowledgments. The work published in this paper is partly funded by the

European Commission through the STREP PICTURE. It does not represent the view
of European Commission or the PICTURE consortium and the authors are solely
responsible for the paper's content.

References

[1] Green, P. F., Rosemann, M.: Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation.
Information Systems 25 (2000) 73-87
[2] Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.: Using ontology to validate conceptual models.
Communications of the ACM 46 (2003) 85-89
[3] Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management - A Guide for the Design of
Business Processes. Springer, Berlin et al. (2003)
[4] Hadar, I., Soffer, P.: Variations in Conceptual Modeling: Classification and Ontological
Analysis. Journal of the AIS 7 (2006) 568-592
[5] Pfeiffer, D., Gehlert, A.: A framework for comparing conceptual models. In: Proc.
Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2005)
(2005) 108-122
[6] Pfeiffer, D.: Constructing comparable conceptual models with domain specific languages.
In: Proc. 15th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2007) (2007)
[7] Mena, E., Kashyap, V., Sheth, A., Illarramendi, A.: Domain Specific Ontologies for
Semantic Information Brokering on the Global Information Infrastructure. In: Proc. First
International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (1998)
[8] Guizzardi, G., Pires, L. F., Sinderen, M. J. v.: On the role of Domain Ontologies in the
design of Domain-Specific Visual Modeling Languages. In: Proc. 17th ACM Conference on
Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2002)
(2002)
[9] Becker, J., Algermissen, L., Falk, T., Pfeiffer, D., Fuchs, P.: Model Based Identification and
Measurement of Reorganization Potential in Public Administrations – the PICTURE-
Approach. In: Proc. Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)
(2006) 860-875
[10]Rahm, E., Bernstein, P. A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The
VLDB Journal 10 (2001) 334-350