Skip to main content

Conceptual Modelling: A Philosophy of Fiction Account

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 1995 Accesses

Abstract

Business analysts, software engineers and indeed anybody concerned in any way with the software development process refer to models in documents and conversations with colleagues. Often the nature of the conversation will be to make assertions about the model which they deem capable of being true or false. For example, it is not uncommon for an analyst to refer to a symbol on a diagram and state, ‘this is external to the system’ or even refer to another symbol and say, ‘this is the system’. Such statements do not appear to cause the analyst any pause for thought, and more often than not, this shared linguistic practice does not present problems and will likely be the basis of a successful conversation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Beck K (2000) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich A How scientific models can explain. Synthese :1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) Unified modeling language user guide. The Addison-Wesley object technology series. Addison-Wesley Professional, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JM (1995) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigg R (2010) Models and fiction. Synthese 172(2):251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (2004) How models are used to represent reality. Philos Sci 71:742–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P (2009) Models and fictions in science. Philos Stud 143(1):101–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong J (2011) Matters of design, part II. Commun ACM 54(4):10–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson I, Christerson M, Jonsson P, Overgaard G (1992) Object-oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque P, Olsen SH (1996) Truth, fiction, and literature: a philosophical perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankhorst M (2009) Enterprise architecture at work: modelling, communication and analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauesen S, Vinter O (2001) Preventing requirement defects: an experiment in process improvement. Requir Eng 6(1):37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurel B (1993) Computers as theatre. 1991. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes MJ, Jones S (1998) Requirements engineering: a perspective through theory-building. In: ICRE. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, p 0100

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohagheghi P, Dehlen V, Neple T (2009) Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development-a review of literature. Inf Softw Technol 51(12):1646–1669

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55(3):243–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor JH (1978) Three myths of computer science. Br J Philos Sci 29(3):213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1986) Cognitive engineering. In: Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) User centered system design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 31–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips JF (1999) Truth and inference in fiction. Philos Stud 94(3):273–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich BH, Benbasat I (2000) Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Q 24:81–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle G (1949) The concept of mind. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith BC (1991) Limits of correctness in computers. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubblefield WA (2002) Narrative and meaning in ordinary interactive software. In: Storytelling and collaborative activities workshop (CSCW 2002). Citeseer

    Google Scholar 

  • Toon A (2010) Models as make-believe. In: Frigg R, Hunter M (eds) Beyond mimesis and convention. Springer, Dordrecht/London, pp 71–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton KL (1990) Mimesis as make-believe: on the foundations of the representational arts. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balbir S. Barn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this paper

Cite this paper

Barn, B.S., Barn, G.K. (2013). Conceptual Modelling: A Philosophy of Fiction Account. In: Pooley, R., Coady, J., Schneider, C., Linger, H., Barry, C., Lang, M. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4951-5_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4951-5_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4950-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4951-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics