On the Identification of Modeler Communities
Author:
van der Linden Dirk1, Hoppenbrouwers Stijn J.B.A.2, Proper Henderik A.1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg, Luxembourg & Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands & EE-Team, Luxembourg 2. HAN University of Applied Sciences, Arnhem, Netherlands & Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands & EE-Team, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Abstract
The authors discuss the use and challenges of identifying communities with shared semantics in Enterprise Modeling (EM). People tend to understand modeling meta-concepts (i.e., a modeling language's constructs or types) in a certain way and can be grouped by this conceptual understanding. Having an insight into the typical communities and their composition (e.g., what kind of people constitute such a semantic community) can make it easier to predict how a conceptual modeler with a certain background will generally understand the meta-concepts s/he uses, which is useful for e.g., validating model semantics and improving the efficiency of the modeling process itself. The authors have observed that in practice decisions to group people based on certain shared properties are often made, but are rarely backed up by empirical data demonstrating their supposed efficacy. The authors demonstrate the use of psychometric data from two studies involving experienced (enterprise) modeling practitioners and computing science students to find such communities. The authors also discuss the challenge that arises in finding common real-world factors shared between their members to identify them by and conclude that there is no empirical support for commonly used (and often implicit) grouping properties such as similar background, focus and modeling language.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Information Systems
Reference58 articles.
1. Alani, H., & Shadbolt, N. (2002). Identifying communities of practice: Analysing ontologies as networks to support community recognition. In Proceedings of the 2002 IFIP World Computer Congress. 2. A proposal to evaluate ontology content.;M. B.Almeida;Applied Ontology,2009 3. Ayala, C. P., Cares, C., Carvallo, J. P., Grau, G., Haya, M., & Salazar, G. … Quer, C. (2005). A comparative analysis of i*-based agent-oriented modeling languages. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’05), Taipei, Taiwan (pp. 43–50). 4. Barjis, J., Kolfschoten, G., & Verbraeck, A. (2009). Collaborative enterprise modeling. In Proper, E., Harmsen, F., & Dietz, J. (Eds.), Advances in enterprise engineering II (vol. 28 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pp. 50–62). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 5. Bidarra, R., Van Den Berg, E., & Bronsvoort, W. (2001). Collaborative modeling with features. In Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference (DETC’01).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. A hierarchical framework for concepts in physical geography;Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment;2018-09-03
|
|