Abstract
AbstractHumanity has long since used models, in different shapes and forms, to understand, redesign, communicate about, and shape, the world around us; including many different social, economic, biological, chemical, physical, and digital aspects. This has resulted in a wide range of modeling practices. When the models as used in such modeling practices have a key role to play in the activities in which these practices are ‘embedded’, the need emerges to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of such processes, and speak about modeling capabilities. In the latter situation, it also becomes relevant to develop a thorough understanding of the artifacts involved in modeling practices/capabilities. One context in which models play (an increasingly) important role is model-driven systems development, including software engineering, information systems engineering, business process engineering, enterprise engineering, and enterprise architecture management. In such a context, we come across a rich variety of modeling related artifacts, such as views, diagrams, programs, animations, specifications, etc. In this paper, which is actually part of an ongoing ‘journey’ in which we aim to gain deeper insights into the foundations of modeling, we take a fundamental look at the variety of modeling related artifacts as used in the context of model-driven (systems) development, while also presenting an associated framework for understanding, synthesizing the insights we obtained during the ‘journey’ so-far. In doing so, we will also argue that the aforementioned artifacts are actually specific kinds of models, albeit for fundamentally different purposes. The provided framework for understanding involves definitions of domain model, the Return on Modeling Effort (RoME), the conceptual fidelity of domain models, as well as views as a mechanism to manage the complexity of domain models.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference81 articles.
1. Apostel L. Towards the formal study of models in the non-formal sciences. Synth Int J Epistemol, Methodol Philos Sci. 1960;12:125–61.
2. Arbab F, de Boer FS, Bonsangue M, Lankhorst MM, Proper HA, van der Torre LWN. Integrating architectural models: symbolic, semantic and subjective models in enterprise architecture. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit. 2007;2(1):40–57. https://doi.org/10.18417/emisa.2.1.4.
3. Azevedo CLB, Iacob ME, Almeida JPA, van Sinderen MJ, Ferreira Pires L, Guizzardi G. Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: a well-founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Inf Syst. 2015;54:235–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2015.04.008.
4. Band I, Ellefsen T, Estrem B, Iacob ME, Jonkers H, Lankhorst MM, Nilsen D, Proper HA, Quartel DAC, Thorn S. ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. The Open Group, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom (2016)
5. Bjeković M, Proper HA, Sottet JS. Embracing pragmatics. In: Yu ESK, Dobbie G, Jarke M, Purao S (eds.) Conceptual Modeling – 33rd International Conference, ER 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 27–29, 2014. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_37