Abstract
In the traditional systems modeling approach, the modeler is required
to capture a user’s view of some domain in a formal conceptual schema.
The designer’s conceptualization may, or may not match with the user’s
conceptualization. One of the reasons for these conflicts is the
lack of an initial agreement among users and modelers concerning
the concepts belonging to the domain. Such an agreement could be
facilitated by means of an ontology. If the ontology is previously
constructed and formalized so that it can be shared by the modeler
and the user in the development process, such conflicts would be
less likely to happen. Following up on that, a number of investigators
have suggested that those working on information systems should make
use of commonly held, formally defined ontologies that would constrain
and direct the design, development, and use of information systems
– thus avoiding the above mentioned difficulties. Whether ontologies
represent a significant advance from the more traditional conceptual
schemas has been challenged by some researchers. We review and summarize
some major themes of this complex discussion. While recognizing the
commonalities and historical continuities between conceptual schemas
and ontologies, we think that there is an important emerging distinction
which should not be obscured, but should guide future developments.
In particular, we propose that the notions of conceptual schemas
and ontologies be distinguished so as to play essentially different
roles for the developers and users of information systems. We first
suggest that ontologies and conceptual schemas belong to two different
epistemic levels. They have different objects and are created with
different objectives. Our proposal is that ontologies should deal
with general assumptions concerning the explanatory invariants of
a domain – those that provide a framework enabling understanding
and explanation of data across all domains inviting explanation and
understanding. Conceptual schemas, on the other hand, should address
the relation between such general explanatory categories and the facts
that exemplify them in a particular domain (e.g., the contents of
the database). In contrast to ontologies, conceptual schemas would
involve specification of the meaning of the explanatory categories
for a particular domain as well as the consequent dimensions of possible
variation among the relevant data of a given domain. Accordingly,
the conceptual schema makes possible both the intelligibility and
the measurement of those facts of a particular domain. The proposed
distinction between ontologies and conceptual schemas makes possible
a natural decomposition of information systems in terms of two necessary
but complementary epistemic functions: identification of an invariant
background and measurement of the object along dimensions of possible
variation. Recognition of the suggested distinction represents, we
think, a natural evolution in the field of modeling, and significant
principled guidance for developers and users of information systems.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).