Post on 26-Feb-2021
transcript
Embracing pragmatics
Marija Bjeković, Henderik A. Proper, Jean-Sébastien Sottet
ER 2014, Atlanta
29.10.2014
Embracing pragmatics?
Pragmatics of enterprise modelling languages
- an explanatory framework -
“Pragmatics for modelling is the study how languages
are used for intended deployment functions in
dependence on the purposes and goals within a
community of practice.” [Thalheim2012]
Understanding and explanation of the actual use of
modelling languages
2
Agenda
Research challenge and approach
How we embraced pragmatics
Summary and outlook
3
RESEARCH CHALLENGE
4
Actual use of BPMN standard
5 [zurMuehlen&Recker2008] [Recker2010]
6 [Recker2010]
Business rules? Process landscapes? Organisational structure and roles? [Recker2010] [Wohed2006]
7
[Recker2010]
“Ad-hoc” and “local” extensions and adaptations
8
[Recker2010]
Further examples
Ongoing evolution of ArchiMate standard
Practical use of conceptual modelling [Davies2006] [Fettke2009] [Anaby-Tavor2010]
Software architecture languages [Malavolta2013]
e3value [Kort2008], i* [Elahi2008]
9
ArchiMate 1.0 ArchiMate 2.0 + Migration + Motivation
? + Business policies and rules + Strategy + Risk + Capability…
Uniform representation format
Standard exchange format
Capitalise on best practices
Knowledge transfer
Prescribe the way of modelling
10
LANGUAGE ENGINEERING
LANGUAGE USE
VALUE
Compensate for ‘missing
aspects’
Org. contexts and topics
Modelling situations and
audiences
Reduce the complexity of
the language used
Effort to learn and use
[Malavolta2013] [Anaby-Tavor2010] [Fernandez2010] [Bubenko2010]
[zurMuehlen&Recker2008] [Recker2010] [Carvallo2009] [Fernandez2010]
11
LANGUAGE ENGINEERING
LANGUAGE USE
VALUE
First and foremost understand and explain the drivers and
factors underlying the use of modelling languages
Recurrent phenomena in design/use of modelling languages
Requires a fundamental understanding
Available empirical data on language use is mostly of
quantitative nature (surveys, artefact analyses)
Observations of language use in context (qualitative) may
complement and enable for a richer and deeper understanding
[Gregor2006] EXPLANATORY THEORY
Our glasses
Utility-oriented view on models and modelling
languages
Value of language is inherently related to its use.
Socio-pragmatic constructivist stance
12
[Wyssusek2001,2002,2004]
[Proper2005]
13
EXPLANATORY THEORY
ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES
IN THEIR ACTUAL USE
Observations
ANALYTIC RESEARCH
INTERPRETATIVE RESEARCH (qualitative)
FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF
CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES
A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING
Critique of RW
Critique of RW
HOW WE EMBRACED
PRAGMATICS?
14
15
A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING
Critical synthesis of the selected theoretical work
Modelling in general [Stachowiak1973] [Rothenberg1989] [Wyssusek2001]
Conceptual/enterprise modelling [FRISCO1998] [Proper2005] [Hoppenbrouwers2005] [Thalheim2011,2012] [Kaschek2013] [Wilmont2013]
Makes the role of purpose in modelling explicit
Grounding:
Semiotics - Morris [Morris1946], Pierce [Short2009]
Cognitive science [Lakoff1987]
Model definition
A model is an artefact acknowledged by the observer as
representing some domain for a particular purpose.
16
• Artefact. Excludes conceptions or mental models. Model is necessarily represented in the physical space, be it material or virtual.
• Observer. Refers to model creators and (relevant) model audience. Observer plays the key role in modelling.
• Domain. Any ‘part’ or ‘aspect’ of the world (past, real, possible) considered relevant by the observer in the given modelling situation.
• Purpose. Aggregates the domain that the model pertains to and the intended usage by the intended audience.
Model definition
A model is an artefact acknowledged by the observer as
representing some domain for a particular purpose.
17
• Purposefulness. The value of a model consists in how it enables some usage of the model by its intended audience
- Influences all the processes involved in modelling in a non-trivial way - Observer is the key in evaluating the model’s purposefulness - Return on modelling effort (cost-benefit)
=> Model is only a representation of the domain for a particular purpose. A different purpose may require a different model.
Model
18
cd d
m
conception of
p
O
O - observer d - domain p - purpose cd - conception of d m – artefact representing cd influence
A fundamental view on modelling (1/2)
Abstraction Manifestation Evaluation
cd d
m
conception of
p
O
cd d
m
conception of
p
O
(model-to-be)
cd d conception of
p
O
A fundamental view on modelling (2/2)
20
cd d
m
conception of
cm
cp p
O
Mutual alignment of
conceptions is driven by
the observer’s evaluation
of the artefact’s
purposefulness.
Although always implicitly
present, it should be
explicitly considered in the
modelling process.
The idea that the purpose
and domain can be fully
determined a priori is an
illusion.
21
A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING
cd d
m
conception of
p
O
Grounding
Cognitive linguistics
Functional linguistics
Cognitive science
Proposition
To properly understand how language functions in a wider socio-
pragmatic modelling context, it is necessary to go beyond a
strictly normative view often adopted in design and evaluation of
modelling languages.
FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF
CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES
[Geeraerts2010]
[Cruse2011] [Clark1993]
[Lakoff1987]
[Stamper2000] [Hoppenbrouwers2003] [Hoppenbrouwers2005] [Thalheim2011,2012] [Kaschek2013] [Wyssusek2001,2004]
Role of conceptual modelling language
22
cd d
m
conception of
p
LINGUISTIC FUNCTION
REPRESENTATION FUNCTION
MODELLING LANGUAGE
Linguistic structure Role: • Frame the discourse about domain • Shape its conception
Representation system Role: • Facilitate expressing the
conception into a purposeful model, specifically for its mechanical manipulation
O
Traditionally…
23
cd d
m
conception of
p
O LINGUISTIC FUNCTION
REPRESENTATION FUNCTION
MODELLING LANGUAGE
Linguistic structure Role: • Frame the discourse about domain • Shape its conception
Goal: • Reuse across different
modelling situations
Representation system Role: • Facilitate expressing the
conception into a purposeful model, specifically for its mechanical manipulation
Goal: • Reuse across different domains,
machine readability
NORMATIVE/STIPULATED LANGUAGE (a priori)
OVEREMPHASISES TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
Linguistic function
24
cd d
m
conception of
p
O
LINGUISTIC FUNCTION
REPRESENTATION FUNCTION
MODELLING LANGUAGE
Linguistic structure is always idealised. Linguistic structure is not meaningful per se, but only if situated and rooted in the actual practices of a particular community. If the linguistic structure is not entrenched, it cannot be used in a cognitively effective way. Tendency to adapt/refine the linguistic structure to the given situation is natural.
[Lakoff1987] [Geeraerts2010]
Cognitive economy Cognitive effectiveness Cognitive fit
Variety in modelling language use
25
cd d
m
conception of
p
O Abstraction variety
Representation variety
• Abstraction level • Topics (domain scope) • Concepts for the
discourse about the domain
• Granularity of representation
• Medium
If the language/tool does not allow it, workarounds are very likely to occur.
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
26
27
EXPLANATORY THEORY
ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES
IN THEIR ACTUAL USE
Observation
ANALYTIC RESEARCH
INTERPRETATIVE RESEARCH (qualitative)
FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF
CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES
A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING
PURPOSE
BEYOND PURELY NORMATIVE VIEW LINGUISTIC FUNCTION
Immediate focus: Explanatory theory
Operationalisation, evaluation, further maturation
Elaborated a number of hypothesis with regards to
causes of language variation
Some initial thoughts are in the paper
Running case studies (qualitative method)
2 cases actually in the pipeline
Observations of language use in actual modelling situations
Coupled with analysis of models and other relevant artefacts,
and with interviews
28
Long term focus: Language design
29
• Careful balance representational and linguistic function of the
modelling languages
• Just enough language standarisation? • Reference language ecosystem (core + ‘local dialects’)
• Pragmatics-driven modular organisation
• Flexible modelling environments • Growing research interest across different communities
[Ossher2011] [Cho2011] [Cuadrado2012] [Gabrysiak2011] [Frank2014a,b] [Kimelman2011]
[Frank2014a,b]
30
Thank you!
http://www.ee-team.eu/
References
31
[Anaby-Tavor2010] Anaby-Tavor, A.; Amid, D.; Fisher, A.; Bercovici, A.; Ossher, H.; Callery, M.; Desmond, M.; Krasikov, S. & Simmonds, I. Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling, Data Knowledge Eng., 2010, 69, 1302-1318 [Bubenko2010] Bubenko, J. J. A.; Persson, A. & Stirna, J. An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling, Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, Springer, 2010, 215-237 [Cuadrado2012] Sánchez-Cuadrado, J.; Lara, J. d. & Guerra, E., Bottom-Up Meta-Modelling: An Interactive Approach, Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2012, Proceedings, Springer, 2012, 3-19 [Cho2011] Cho, H.; Sun, Y.; Gray, J. & White, J., Key challenges for modeling language creation by demonstration ICSE FlexiTools Workshop, 2011 [Clark1993] Clark, H. Arenas of Language Use, University of Chicago Press, 1993 [Cruse2011] Cruse, A. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, 2011 [Davies2006] Davies, I.; Green, P. F.; Rosemann, M.; Indulska, M. & Gallo, S. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice?, Data Knowl. Eng., 2006, 58, 358-380 [Elahi2008] Elahi, G.; Yu, E. & Annosi, M. C. Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis, PoEM 2008, 2008, 15-29 [Fernandez2010] Fernández, H. F.; Palacios-González, E.; Garcia-Diaz, V.; Pelayo, G.; Bustelo, B. C.; Sanjuán Martinez, O. & Cueva Lovelle, J. M. SBPMN -- An Easier Business Process Modeling Notation for Business Users Computer Standards & Interfaces, Elsevier, 2010, 32, 18-28 [Fettke2009] Fettke, P. How Conceptual Modeling Is Used, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2009, Vol. 25 [Frank2014a] Frank, U. Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges, Software and System Modeling, 2014, 13, 941-962
32
[Frank2014b] Frank, U. Power-Modelling: Toward a More Versatile Approach to Creating and Using Conceptual Models, Business Modeling and Software Design, 4th International Symposium, 2014, 9-19 [FRISCO1998] Falkenberg, E. D.; Hesse, W.; Lindgreen, P.; Nilsson, B. E.; Oei, J.; Rolland, C.; Stamper, R.; Van Assche, F.; Verrijn-Stuart, A. & Voss, K. FRISCO - A Framework of Information System Concepts, IFIP WG 8.1, 1998 [Gabrysiak2011] Gabrysiak, G.; Giese, H.; Lüders, A. & Seibel, A. How Can Metamodels Be Used Flexibly,Proceedings of ICSE 2011 Workshop on Flexible Modeling Tools, FLEXITOOLS, 2011, 22 [Hoppenbrouwers2003] Hoppenbrouwers, S. Freezing Language; Conceptualisation processes in ICT supported organisations, University of Nijmegen, 2003, PhD dissertation [Hoppenbrouwers2005] Hoppenbrouwers, S.; Proper, H. & van der Weide, T. A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling, ER, 2005, 128-143 [Kaschek2013] Kaschek, R. A Semantic Analysis of Shared References, ER, 2013, 88-95 [Kimelman2011] Kimelman, D. & Hirschman, K. A Spectrum of Flexibility-Lowering Barriers to Modeling Tool Adoption, ICSE FlexiTools Workshop, 2011 [Kort2008] Kort, C. & Gordjin, J. Modeling Strategic Partnerships Using the e3value Ontology: A Field Study in the Banking Industry, Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction, IGI Global, 2008, 310-325 [Malavolta2013] Malavolta, I.; Lago, P.; Muccini, H.; Pelliccione, P. & Tang, A. What Industry Needs from Architectural Languages: A Survey, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng., 2013, 39, 869-891 [Morris1946] Charles W. Morris (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior, Prentice-Hall, 1946.
[Ossher2011] Ossher, H.; Bellamy, R. K. E.; Amid, D.; Anaby-Tavor, A.; Callery, M.; Desmond, M.; de Vries, J.; Fisher, A.; Frauenhofer, T.; Krasikov, S.; Simmonds, I. & Swart, C., Business insight toolkit: Flexible pre-requirements modeling, ICSE Companion, 2009, 423-424 [Proper2005] Proper, H. A.; Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. & Hoppenbrouwers, S. On Utility-based Selection of Architecture-Modelling Concepts, APCCM 2005, 2005, 25-34
33
[Recker2010] Recker, J. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN, Business Proc. Manag. Journal, 2010, 16, 181-201 [Rothenberg1989] Rothenberg, J. The Nature of Modeling, Artificial intelligence, simulation & modeling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989, 75-92 [Short2009] Short,T L., Pierce‘s Theory of signs, Cambridge University Press, 2009
[Stachowiak1973] Stachowiak, H. Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1973 [Thalheim2011] Thalheim, B. The Theory of Conceptual Models, the Theory of Conceptual Modelling and Foundations of Conceptual Modelling, Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, Springer, 2011, 543-577 [Thalheim2012] Thalheim, B. Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Conceptual Modelling, NLDB, 2012, 1-10 [Wilmont2013] Wilmont, I.; Hengeveld, S.; Barendsen, E. & Hoppenbrouwers, S. Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Modelling - How Do People Do It?, ER, 2013, 74-87 [Wohed2006] Wohed, P.; van der Aalst, W. M. P.; Dumas, M.; ter Hofstede, A. H. M. & Russell, N. On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling, Business Process Management, 2006, 161-176 [Wyssusek2001] Wyssusek, B.; Schwartz, M. & Kremberg, B. The Philosophical Foundation of Conceptual Knowledge – a Sociopragmatic Approach, Supplementary Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Structures, 2001, 189-192 [Wyssusek2002] Wyssusek, B.; Schwartz, M. & Kremberg, B. Targeting the Social: A Sociopragmatic Approach Towards Design and Use of Information Systems, Information Resources Management Association Int. Conf., 2002, 832-835 [Wyssusek2004] Wyssusek, B. Ontology and ontologies in information systems analysis and design: a critique. AMCIS, 2004, 4303-4308