2001
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45581-7_27
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, ontologies can be evaluated to determine how well they account for users' experiences with different grammars. Second, scripts generated via grammars using ontologically based modeling rules (e.g., Evermann andWoo 1993) can be evaluated to determine their usefulness.…”
Section: Some Future Research Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, ontologies can be evaluated to determine how well they account for users' experiences with different grammars. Second, scripts generated via grammars using ontologically based modeling rules (e.g., Evermann andWoo 1993) can be evaluated to determine their usefulness.…”
Section: Some Future Research Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, UML was created to support software design. Evermann and Wand (2001) show how UML can be extended to facilitate conceptual modeling by mapping its constructs to ontological concepts. (4) Better use of grammars.…”
Section: Some Future Research Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To cite one example: in a series of papers (e.g. [15,16]) the proponents of the BWW (BungeWand-Weber) approach claim that universals whose instances are properties (moments) should not be modeled as classes in a conceptual model of the domain. This claim is contested by Veres and Hitchman in [17] who employ Jakendoff's Semantic Structures [18] as well as empirical results from modeling sections with practioneers.…”
Section: Final Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The approach found in the literature that is closest to the one presented here is the socalled BWW approach presented in (e.g., [5,11,14]). In these articles, the authors report their results in mapping common constructs of conceptual modeling to an upper level ontology.…”
Section: A Critical Comparison To the Bww Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, in BWW, only things (objects) possess properties. In particular, for the case of relational properties, this dictum leads to the following modeling principle: "Associations should not be modeled as classes" (rule 7 in [14]). This claim is not only perceived as counterintuitive by conceptual modeling practitioners (as shown by [16,17]), but, as discussed in depth [1,2], it is also controversial from a metaphysical point of view and puts BWW in a singular position among the foundational ontologies developed in the realm of computer science.…”
Section: A Critical Comparison To the Bww Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%