Towards Hybrid Semantics of Enterprise Modeling Languages

Richard Braun, Werner Esswein


Enterprise Modeling Languages (EMLs) are generally perceived as conceptual modeling languages having a formal syntax and informal semantics. The non-formality of semantics is mainly caused by the materiality of the addressed domain (enterprises and its related aspects) and the resulting personal interpretation of syntactical constructs. However, EMLs may also explicitly define invariant interpretations in the sense of possible model executions or the definition of domain-specific restrictions. It is therefore promising to address a possible amalgamation of material semantics and formal semantics in order to provide an integrated and comprehensive semantic specification of EMLs. This position paper introduces and motivates the topic by systematizing and consolidating approaches from both fields and introduces a framework for so-called hybrid semantics on the meta model layer. Further, the general relevance of semantics and semantic specifications in EMLs is emphasized and prospective research challenges are proposed.


  1. Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevic?ius, R., Opdahl, A. L., Panetto, H., and Verdecho, M. J. (2010). The unified enterprise modelling language-overview and further work. Computers in Industry, 61(2):99-111.
  2. Bjekovic, M., Proper, H. A., and Sottet, J.-S. (2013). Enterprise modelling languages-just enough standardisation? In BMSD, pages 1-23.
  3. Bjekovic, M., Proper, H. A., and Sottet, J.-S. (2014). Embracing pragmatics. Conceptual Modeling, 8824:431- 444.
  4. Bloom, P. (1998). Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition, 66(1):87-93.
  5. Bork, D. and Fill, H.-G. (2014). Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: A comparison framework. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 3400-3409. IEEE.
  6. Braun, R. (2015). Towards the state of the art of extending enterprise modeling languages. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, pages 394-402.
  7. Braun, R. and Esswein, W. (2014). Classification of domain-specific bpmn extensions. InThe Practice of Enterprise Modeling, volume 147 of Lecture Notes of Business Information Processing, pages 42-57.
  8. Braun, R., Schlieter, H., Burwitz, M., and Esswein, W. (2014). Bpmn4cp: Design and implementation of a bpmn extension for clinical pathways. In IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 9-16. IEEE.
  9. Burwitz, M., Schlieter, H., and Esswein, W. (2013). Modeling clinical pathways-design and application of a domain-specific modeling language. Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings.
  10. Cengarle, M. V., Grönninger, H., and Rumpe, B. (2014). System model semantics of class diagrams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6635.
  11. Delfmann, P., Herwig, S., and Lis, L. (2009). Unified enterprise knowledge representation with conceptual models-capturing corporate language in naming conventions. ICIS 2009 Proceedings, page 45.
  12. Engels, G., Hausmann, J. H., Heckel, R., and Sauer, S. (2000). Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in uml. In UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language, pages 323-337. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  13. Engels, G., Küster, J. M., Heckel, R., and Groenewegen, L. (2001). A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, volume 26, pages 186-195. ACM.
  14. Esswein, W. and Lehrmann, S. (2013). About the need for semantically enriched reference models. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems.
  15. Esswein, W. and Weller, J. (2007). Method modifications in a configuration management environment. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems, pages 2002-2013.
  16. Fill, H.-G. (2015). Metamodeling as an interface between syntax and semantics. In Glück, B., Lachmayer, F., Schefbeck, G., and Schweighofer, E., editors, Elektronische Schnittstellen in der Staatsorganisation, pages 43-50.
  17. Frank, U. (2013). Domain-specific modeling languages: requirements analysis and design guidelines. In Domain Engineering, pages 133-157. Springer.
  18. Frank, U. (2014). Enterprise modelling: The next steps. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 9(1):22-37.
  19. Gehlert, A. (2007). Migration fachkonzeptueller Modelle. Logos-Verlag.
  20. Gehlert, A., Buckmann, U., and Esswein, W. (2005). Ontology based method engineering. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, page 436.
  21. Gehlert, A. and Esswein, W. (2006). Toward more rigor in ontological analyses. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, pages 984-994.
  22. Guizzardi, G. (2007). On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta) models. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications , 155:18.
  23. Guizzardi, G., Ferreira Pires, L., and Van Sinderen, M. J. (2002). On the role of domain ontologies in the design of domain-specific visual modeling langages.
  24. Hamann, L. and Gogolla, M. (2013). Endogenous metamodeling semantics for structural UML 2 concepts. In Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., and Clarke, P. J., editors, Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems - 16th International Conference, MODELS 2013, Miami, FL, USA, September 29 - October 4, 2013. Proceedings, volume 8107 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 488-504. Springer.
  25. Harel, D. and Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful modeling: What's the semantics of semantics? Computer, 37(10):64-72.
  26. Harzallah, M., Berio, G., and Opdahl, A. L. (2012). New perspectives in ontological analysis: Guidelines and rules for incorporating modelling languages into ueml. Information Systems, 37(5):484-507.
  27. Hausmann, J. H. (2003). Metamodeling relations-relating metamodels. Metamodelling for MDA, pages 147- 161.
  28. Hausmann, J. H., Heckel, R., and Sauer, S. (2005). Dynamic Meta Modeling. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn.
  29. Heaven, W. and Finkelstein, A. (2004). Uml profile to support requirements engineering with kaos. IEE Proceedings-Software, 151(1):10-27.
  30. Henderson-Sellers, B. (2005). Uml-the good, the bad or the ugly? perspectives from a panel of experts. Software and Systems Modeling, 4(1):4-13.
  31. Höfferer, P. (2007). Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems, pages 1620-1631.
  32. Holten, R. (2003). Integration von informationssystemen. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 45(1):41-52.
  33. Karagiannis, D. and Kühn, H. (2002). Metamodelling platforms. In EC-Web, volume 2455, page 182.
  34. Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V., Kubovy, J., Natschläger, C., Ziebermayr, T., Kopetzky, T., Freudenthaler, B., and Schewe, K.-D. (2014). A Rigorous Semantics for BPMN 2.0 Process Diagrams. Springer.
  35. Kühn, H. (2004). Methodenintegration im Business Engineering. PhD thesis, Universität Wien.
  36. Lam, V. S. (2012). A precise execution semantics for bpmn. IAENG International Journal of Computer Science, 39(1):20-33.
  37. Lankhorst, M. (2009). {Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis (The Enterprise Engineering Series)}.
  38. Lankhorst, M. M., Proper, H. A., and Jonkers, H. (2009). The architecture of the archimate language. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, pages 367-380. Springer.
  39. Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., and Solvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2):42-49.
  40. Maes, A. and Poels, G. (2007). Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 63(3):701-724.
  41. Malt, B. C. (1990). Features and beliefs in the mental representation of categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(3):289-315.
  42. Maoz, S., Ringert, J. O., and Rumpe, B. (2010). A manifesto for semantic model differencing. In Models in Software Engineering - Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2010, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, pages 194-203.
  43. Messer, B. (1999). Zur interpretation formaler geschäftsprozeß-und workflow-modelle. In Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wissenschaftstheorie, pages 95-123. Springer.
  44. Natschläger, C. (2011a). Deontic bpmn. In Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 264-278. Springer.
  45. Natschläger, C. (2011b). Towards a bpmn 2.0 ontology. In Business Process Model and Notation, pages 1-15. Springer.
  46. OMG (2011). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG).
  47. Opdahl, A. L., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., and Matulevicius, R. (2012). An ontology for enterprise and information systems modelling. Applied Ontology, 7(1):49-92.
  48. Opdahl, A. L. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). Ontological evaluation of the uml using the bungewand-weber model. Software and Systems modeling, 1(1):43-67.
  49. Overhage, P. D. S., Birkmeier, D. Q., and Schlauderer, S. (2012). Quality marks, metrics, and measurement procedures for business process models. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(5):229-246.
  50. Pfeiffer, D. and Gehlert, A. (2005). A framework for comparing conceptual models. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2005), pages 108-122.
  51. Pietsch, P., Müller, K., and Rumpe, B. (2014). Model matching challenge: Benchmarks for ecore and bpmn diagrams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5693.
  52. Proper, H. A., Verrijn-Stuart, A. A., and Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2005). On utility-based selection of architecturemodelling concepts. In Proceedings of the 2nd AsiaPacific conference on Conceptual modelling-Volume 43, pages 25-34. Australian Computer Society, Inc.
  53. Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G. L., and de Vreede, G.-J. (2008). Challenges in collaborative modeling: A literature review. In Advances in Enterprise Engineering I, pages 61-77. Springer.
  54. Rosemann, M., Green, P., and Indulska, M. (2004). A reference methodology for conducting ontological analyses. In Conceptual Modeling, pages 110-121. Springer.
  55. Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L., Kump, B., Pammer, V., Lindstaedt, S. N., Faatz, A., and Ley, T. (2008). Collaborative enterprise integrated modelling. In SWAP, volume 426. Citeseer.
  56. Santos, P. S., Almeida, J. P. A., and Guizzardi, G. (2013). An ontology-based analysis and semantics for organizational structure modeling in the aris method. Information Systems, 38(5):690-708.
  57. Scheer, A.-W. and Nüttgens, M. (2000). ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. Springer.
  58. Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., and Trigaux, J.-C. (2006). Feature diagrams: A survey and a formal semantics. In Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE international conference, pages 139-148. IEEE.
  59. Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Harvard University Press.
  60. Soltenborn, C. and Engels, G. (2009). Towards test-driven semantics specification. InModel Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 12th International Conference, MODELS 2009, Proceedings, pages 378-392.
  61. Tarski, A. (1936). Der wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten sprachen.
  62. Thalheim, B. (2012). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of conceptual modelling. In Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, pages 1-10. Springer.
  63. van der Linden, D. (2015). Personal semantics of metaconcepts in conceptual modeling languages.
  64. van der Linden, D. and Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2012). Challenges of identifying communities with shared semantics in enterprise modeling. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pages 160-171. Springer.
  65. van der Linden, D. and van Zee, M. (2014). On the semantic feature structure of modeling concepts: an empirical study. In Business Informatics (CBI), 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on, volume 2, pages 158-165. IEEE.
  66. Vernadat, F. B. (2003). Enterprise modelling and integration. Springer.
  67. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Information Systems Journal, 3(4):217- 237.
  68. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modelinga research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4):363-376.
  69. Wyssusek, B. (2004). Ontology and ontologies in information systems analysis and design: A critique. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, page 535.
  70. Wyssusek, B. (2006). On ontological foundations of conceptual modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 18(1):article 9.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Braun R. and Esswein W. (2016). Towards Hybrid Semantics of Enterprise Modeling Languages . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 412-420. DOI: 10.5220/0005812504120420

in Bibtex Style

author={Richard Braun and Werner Esswein},
title={Towards Hybrid Semantics of Enterprise Modeling Languages},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Towards Hybrid Semantics of Enterprise Modeling Languages
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Braun R.
AU - Esswein W.
PY - 2016
SP - 412
EP - 420
DO - 10.5220/0005812504120420