Using Ontology Languages for Conceptual Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual models are used to support understanding of and communication about application domains in information systems development. Such models are created using modeling grammars (usually employing graphic representation). To be effective, a grammar should support precise representation of domain concepts and their relationships. Ontology languages such as OWL emerged to define terminologies to support information sharing on the Web. These languages have features that enable representation of semantic relationships among domain concepts and of domain rules, not readily possible with extant conceptual modeling techniques. However, the emphasis in ontology languages has been on formalization and being computer-readable, not on how they can be used to convey domain semantics. Hence, it is unclear how they can be used as conceptual modeling grammars. We suggest using philosophically based ontological principles to guide the use of OWL as a conceptual modeling grammar. The paper presents specific guidelines for creating conceptual models in OWL and demonstrates, via example, the application of the guidelines to creating representations of domain phenomena. To test the effectiveness of the guidelines we conducted an empirical study comparing how well diagrams created with the guidelines support domain understanding in comparison to diagrams created without the guidelines. The results indicate that diagrams created with the guidelines led to better domain understanding of participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".