Ontological and linguistic metamodelling revisited: A language use approach

被引:28
作者
Eriksson, Owen [1 ]
Henderson-Sellers, Brian [2 ]
Agerfalk, Par J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Uppsala Univ, Dept Informat & Media, S-75120 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Univ Technol Sydney, Sch Software, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
关键词
Concepts; Speech act theory; Set theory; Metamodel;
D O I
10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.008
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Context: Although metamodelling is generally accepted as important for our understanding of software and systems development, arguments about the validity and utility of ontological versus linguistic metamodelling continue. Objective: The paper examines the traditional, metamodel-focused construction of modelling languages in the context of language use, and particularly speech act theory. These concepts are then applied to the problems introduced by the "Orthogonal Classification Architecture" that is often called the ontological/linguistic paradox. The aim of the paper is to show how it is possible to overcome these problems. Method: The paper adopts a conceptual-analytical approach by revisiting the published arguments and developing an alternative metamodelling architecture based on language use. Results: The analysis shows that when we apply a language use perspective of meaning to traditional modelling concepts, a number of incongruities and misconceptions in the traditional approaches are revealed - issues that are not evident in previous work based primarily on set theory. Clearly differentiating between the extensional and intensional aspects of class concepts (as sets) and also between objects (in the social world) and things (in the physical world) allows for a deeper understanding to be gained of the relationship between the ontological and linguistic views promulgated in the modelling world. Conclusions: We propose that a viewpoint that integrates language use ideas into traditional modelling (and metamodelling) is vital, and stress that meaning is not inherent in the physical world; meaning, and thus socially valid objects, are constructed by use of language, which may or may not establish a one-to-one correspondence relationship between objects and physical things. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2099 / 2124
页数:26
相关论文
共 78 条
[21]  
Borkar V.S., 1998, RESONANCE J SCI ED, V3, P40
[22]  
Carmichael A., 1994, OBJECT DEV METHODS, P321
[23]   Object-oriented patterns [J].
Coad, Peter .
Communications of the ACM, 1992, 35 (09) :152-159
[24]  
Denning PeterJ., 1978, Machines, Languages and Computation
[25]  
Egginton W., 2004, The Pragmatic Turn in Philosophy: Contemporary Engagements between Analytic and Continental Thought
[26]  
Eriksson O, 2010, J ASSOC INF SYST, V11, P433
[27]   Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior [J].
Evermann, Joerg ;
Wand, Yair .
JOURNAL OF DATABASE MANAGEMENT, 2009, 20 (01) :48-77
[28]  
Flatscher R. G., 2002, ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, V12, P322, DOI 10.1145/643120.643124
[29]  
Frege G, 1892, Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, P25
[30]  
Gasevic D, 2007, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V4735, P91