A procedural model for ontological analyses - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 159

meta models are centred around functions or activities instead of being centred around
things .

Process
The issues related to the process of conducting an ontological analysis have been de-
scribed as lack of completeness, lack of guidance and lack of objectivity.
Based on the assumption that corresponding meta models for the ontology and the ana-
lysed grammar are available, it is possible to clearly specify the scope of an analysis using
those meta models. A selection of clusters, entity types and relationship types would
define all elements that are perceived of relevance for the analysis. An analysis of an
ER-based notation, for example, could be focused on the BWW clusters thing , system
and property and could exclude the more behavioural-oriented clusters event and state .
Such boundaries of an analysis could be easily visualised in the meta model and would
provide a clear description of the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
The existence of two corresponding meta models and a clear definition of the scope of
the analysis are necessary but not sufficient criteria for a well-guided process. Further
guidelines are required regarding the starting point of such a process and the actual se-
quence of activities. Based on our experiences, we recommend starting with the repres-
entation mapping; that is, selecting the meta model of the ontology and subsequently
identifying corresponding elements in the modelling grammar. The first construct to be
analysed should be the most central entity type. For example, in the case of the BWW
model, the entity type thing is the appropriate starting point. Our previous work provides
a strong argument that this analysis should follow a cluster-by-cluster approach. Starting
with the core constructs in a cluster allows a more structured and focused analysis of
the completeness of a modelling grammar. The analysis of the entity types is followed
by the relationships and the cardinalities. Constructs in the meta model that have only
been introduced for reasons of correctness of the meta model, but that do not reflect
ontological constructs, are excluded from the analysis. The representation mapping is
followed by an analysis of the clarity of the target grammar, i.e. the interpretation
mapping. In this case the meta model of the grammar under analysis is the starting point.
The general procedure is similar. A primary advantage of a cluster-based analysis is that
the structure of the two meta models provides valuable input for the ontological analysis.
An example is the analysis of generalisation-specialisation relationships in the meta
model of the grammar. We propose to ontologically classify the super-type first and
then to inherit this ontological classification to all sub-types. This streamlines the process
of the analysis and increases consistency.
The lack of objectivity issue, on the other hand, frequently stems from the analysis being
performed by a single researcher. This situation results in an analysis that is almost
certainly biased by the researcher's background as well as their interpretation of the
specification of the grammar. In order to improve the validity of the analysis, a research
method can be adopted that involves individual analyses of a particular grammar by at
least two members of a research team, followed by discussion and hopefully consensus
as to the final analysis by the entire team of researchers. The method consists of three
steps:
1. Step 1: Using the specification of the grammar in question, at least two researchers

separately read the specification and interpret, select and map the ontological con-
structs to candidate grammatical constructs to create individual first drafts of the
analysis.