ONSET: Automated foundational ontology selection and explanation

Abstract. It has been shown that using a foundational ontology for domain ontology development is beneficial in theory and practice. However, developers have difficulty with choosing the appropriate foundational ontology, and why. In order to solve this problem, a comprehensive set of criteria that influence foundational ontology selection has been compiled and the values for each parameter determined for DOLCE, BFO, GFO, and SUMO. This paper-based analysis is transformed into an easily extensible algorithm and implemented in the novel tool ONSET, which helps a domain ontology developer to choose a foundational ontology through interactive selection of preferences and scaling of importance so that it computes the most suitable foundational ontology for the domain ontology and explains why this selection was made. This has been evaluated in an experiment with novice modellers, which showed that ONSET greatly assists in foundational ontology selection.

Dimensions of Business Processes Quality (QoBP)

Conceptual modeling is an important tool for understanding and revealing weaknesses of business processes. Yet, the current practice in reengineering projects often considers simply the as-is process model as a brain-storming tool. This approach heavily relies on the intuition of the participants and misses a clear description of the quality requirements. Against this background, we identify four generic quality categories of business process quality, and populate them with quality requirements from related research. We refer to the resulting framework as the Quality of Business Process (QoBP) framework. Furthermore, we present the findings from applying the QoBP framework in a case study with a major Australian bank, showing that it helps to systematically fill the white space between as-is and to-be process modeling

Understandability of goal-oriented requirements engineering concepts for enterprise architects

ArchiMate is a graphical language for modelling business goals and enterprise architecture. In previous work we identified possible understandability issues with the goal-oriented notations in ArchiMate. [Problem] We investigated how understandable the goal-oriented concepts really were in two quasi-experiments with practitioners. [Principal ideas/results] Only three concepts were understood by most or all subjects; the stakeholder concept, the goal concept and the requirement concept. The other concepts were misunderstood by most of our subjects. We offer explanations for these (mis)understandings. [Contribution] This paper provides new insights into the understandability and hence usability of goal-oriented concepts by practicing enterprise architects