Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Improving the representation of roles in conceptual modeling: theory, method, and evidence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conceptual models represent the Organizational domain for which an information system is developed. These models are important tools in defining the requirements for the system. When describing an Organization or part of it, a key concept is the notion of roles played by actors in the domain. Actors in an Organization act in various roles, hence, showing that roles in a conceptual model can promote understanding of how the Organization works. However, despite the importance of roles in understanding Organizations and their prevalence in various aspects of information systems development, no consensus exists on what roles are, or how to represent them in conceptual models. In this paper, we formally define role as a conceptual modeling construct based on literature analysis, ontological concepts, and principles of classification. Using this definition, we derive guidelines for representing roles in conceptual models and suggest rules for modeling roles with the widely used extended entity-relationship grammar. Finally, we test the effectiveness of the modeling rules by conducting an experimental study to compare the domain understanding of readers using two types of conceptual modeling scripts. One script was obtained by violating the rules and the other by not violating the rules. We obtained data on domain understanding (using problem-solving questions) and on the process of understanding (using eye tracking). The results indicate that the role-based rules are not only useful for understanding the models but also provide direct clues as to why this is so.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that this is not a criticism of ORM. ORM provides a comprehensive data modeling approach. The approach offered in this paper, in contrast, is focused specifically on modeling roles. Moreover, it is important to note that even if these role annotations in ER diagrams and ORM diagrams did reflect the true nature of a real-world role (which they do not), they are frequently omitted in practice (e.g., [8, 25]).

  2. Although we focus on EER, our proposed method could also be adapted quite easily to other approaches such as UML class diagrams when used for conceptual modeling.

  3. For example, one could add a label such as “is a part of” between two entity types (e.g., wood and building), but this would not reflect a role in our definition. Only some relationships, not all, reflect roles.

  4. While it might add credibility to our results to add additional cases, the results of a single case do show the differences we were examining. We return to this issue when discussing future research opportunities.

  5. As one of our reviewers noted, annotations could still be useful. For instance, annotations could be used to make guided scripts even clearer. Alternatively, annotations could be used to overcome the limitations of unguided scripts. The experiment reported here is just a first step. Future studies would be needed to test these different scenarios.

  6. We only make this prediction for users of the guided scripts. We cannot make a prediction for users of the unguided scripts because there is no clear connection between any specific area of the script and performance in the task.

References

  1. Kent W (1978) Data and reality. 2000: 1st books library (originally published by North Holland)

  2. Denning P (2003) Great principles of computing. Commun ACM 46(11):15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yourdon E (1989) Modern structured analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and telos. In: Loucopoulos P, Zicari R (eds) Conceptual modeling, databases and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. John Wiley, New York, pp 49–68

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pohl K (1993) The three dimensions of requirements engineering. In: 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE). Springer, Berlin

  6. Siddiqi J, Shekaran MC (1996) Requirements engineering: the emerging wisdom. IEEE Softw 13(2):15–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. March ST, Allen GN (2009) Challenges in requirements engineering: a research agenda for conceptual modeling. In: Lyytinen K et al (eds) Design requirements engineering: a 10-year perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–165

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bera P, Evermann J (2014) Guidelines for using UML association classes and their effect on domain understanding in requirements engineering. Requir Eng 19:63–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gemino A, Wand Y (2004) A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir Eng 9(4):248–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Siau K, Lee L (2004) Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? an experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML. Requir Eng 9:229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Siau K, Rossi M (2011) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods: a review and comparative analysis. Inf Syst J 21:249–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fettke P (2009) How conceptual modeling is used. Commun AIS 25(1):571–592

    Google Scholar 

  13. Peckham J, Maryanski F (1988) Semantic data models. ACM Comput Surv 20(3):153–189

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen PPS (1976) The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hull R, King R (1987) Semantic database modeling: survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Comput Surv 19(3):201–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu ESK (1993) Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. San Diego, CA, Jan 4–6. pp 34–41

  17. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. J Inf Syst 3:217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Burton-Jones A, Weber R (2014) Building conceptual modeling on the foundation of ontology. In: Topi H, Tucker A (eds) Information systems and information technology, volume 2, computing handbook set, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, pp 151–1524

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bera P, Burton-Jones A, Wand Y (2011) Guidelines for designing visual ontologies to support knowledge identification. MIS Q 35(4):883–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parsons J, Wand Y (1997) Choosing classes in conceptual modeling. Commun ACM 40(6):63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber R (1996) Are attributes entities? a study of database designer’s memory structures. Inf Syst Res 7(2):137–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bodart F et al (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? a theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 12(4):385–405

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Wand Y, Storey VC, Weber R (1999) An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans Database Syst 24(4):494–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Biddle BJ (1986) Recent developments in role theory. Ann Rev Sociol 12:67–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh JP, Ungson GR (1991) Organizational memory. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):57–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steimann F (2007) The role data model revisited. Appl Ontol 2:89–103

    Google Scholar 

  27. BPMN Business Process Modeling Notation (2004) BPMI.org

  28. Steimann F (2007) A radical revision of UML’s role concept. In: Evans E, Kent S, Selic B (eds) UML 2000: proceedings of the 3rd international conference. Springer, pp 194–209

  29. Verheijen G, Van Bekkum J (1982) NIAM: an information analysis method. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds) Information systems design methodologies. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 537–590

    Google Scholar 

  30. Halpin TA (2008) Information modeling and relational databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  31. Steimann F (2000) On the representation of roles in object-oriented and conceptual modeling. Data Knowl Eng 35:83–106

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu H, Zhou M, Seguin P (2006) Supporting software development with roles. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 36(6):1108–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cabot J, Raventos R (2004) Roles as entity-types: a conceptual modeling pattern. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on conceptual modeling (ER ‘04). LNCS, p 328

  34. Almeida A, Guizzardi G (2008) A semantic foundation for role-related concepts in enterprise modelling. In: International IEEE enterprise distributed object computing conference. Munich

  35. Hoffer JA, Prescott MB, McFadden FR (2008) Modern database management. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pratt PJ, Adamski JJ (2002) Concepts of database management. Course Technology, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kendall KE, Kendall JE (2014) Systems analysis and design, 9th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Ponniah P (2007) Data modeling fundamentals: a practical guide for IT professionals, 1st edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Coronel C, Morris S, Rob P (2010) Database systems: design, implementation, and management, 9th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Connolly T, Begg C (2003) Database systems: a practical approach to design, implementation, and management, 6th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Dietrich SW, Urban SD (2005) An advanced course in database systems: beyond relational databases. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  42. Umanath NS, Scamell RW (2007) Data modeling and database design. Thomson Course Technology, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  43. Elmasri R, Navathe S (2014) Fundamentals of database systems, 7th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Loebe F (2007) Abstract vs. social roles: towards a general theoretical account of roles. Appl Ontol 2:127–158

    Google Scholar 

  45. Colman A, Han J (2007) Roles, players, and adaptable organizations. Appl Ontol 2:105–126

    Google Scholar 

  46. Genilloud G, Wegmann A (2000) A foundation for the concept of role in object modelling. In: Proceedings of the fourth international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC 2000). IEEE, Makuhari, pp 76–85

  47. Sowa JF (2000) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Course Technology, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pernici B (1990) Objects with roles. ACM SIGOIS Bull 11(2–3):205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Masolo C et al (2004) Social roles and their descriptions. In: Dubois D, Welty CA (eds) Ninth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Whistler, pp 267–277

  50. Zhang H, Kishore R, Ramesh R (2007) Semantics of the MibML conceptual modeling grammar: an ontological analysis using the Bunge–Wand–Weber framework. J Database Manag 18(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Boella G, Torre L, Verhagen H (2007) Roles: an interdisciplinary perspective. Appl Ontol 2:81–88

    Google Scholar 

  52. Guarino N (1992) Concepts, attributes and arbitrary relations: some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data Knowl Eng 8(2):249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Angeles P (1981) Dictionary of philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wand Y et al (1995) Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development. Decis Support Syst 15:285–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Parsons J, Wand Y (2008) Using cognitive principles to guide classification in information systems modeling. MIS Q 32(4):839–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bunge M (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy: volume 3: ontology I: the furniture of the world. Reidel, Boston

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Fonseca F (2007) The double role of ontologies in information science research. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58(6):786–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wand Y, Weber R (1990) An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16:1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Green P, Rosemann M (2000) Integrated process modeling: an ontological evaluation. Inf Syst 25(2):73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Evermann J, Wand Y (2005) Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental constructs. Requir Eng 10:146–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Davies I et al (2006) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl Eng 58(3):358–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Saiedian H (1997) An evaluation of extended entity-relationship model. Inf Softw Technol 39(7):449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Teorey TL, Yang D, Fry JP (1986) A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship approach. ACM Comput Surv 18(2):197–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Khatri V et al (2006) Understanding conceptual schemas: exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Inf Syst Res 17(1):81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Information systems and conceptual modelling: a research agenda. Inf Syst Res 13(4):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Evermann J, Wand Y (2006) Ontological modeling rules for UML: an empirical assessment. J Comput Inf Syst 46(5):14–29

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bera P, Evermann J (2014) Guidelines for using UML association classes and their effect on domain understanding in requirements engineering. Requir Eng J 19(1):63–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mayer R (1989) Models for understanding. Rev Educ Res 59:43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Gemino A, Wand Y (2003) Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Commun ACM 46(10):79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Gemino A (1998) To be or may to be: an empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling. In: Annual conference of the administrative sciences association of Canada. College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

  71. Burton-Jones A, Meso P (2008) The effects of decomposition quality and multiple forms of information on novices’ understanding of a domain from a conceptual model. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(12):748–802

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shanks G et al (2008) Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation. MIS Q 32(3):553–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Vessey I (1991) Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci 22(2):219–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Compeau DR et al (2012) Generalizability of information systems research using student subjects: a reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research. Inf Syst Res 23(4):1093–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Jacob RJK, Karn KS (2003) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver the promises. In: Radach R, Hyona J, Deubel H (eds) The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement. Elsevier Sciences BV, Oxford, pp 573–605

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Burton-Jones A, Weber R (1999) Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams. In: 20th international conference on information systems. Charlotte, NC

  77. Pretz JE, Naples AJ, Sternberg RJ (2003) Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In: Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ (eds) The psychology of problem solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Bera P, Burton-Jones A, Wand Y (2014) How semantic and pragmatics interact in understanding conceptual models. Inf Syst Res 25(2):401–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Harrington J (2002) Relational database design clearly explained. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  80. Mayer RE (2001) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  81. Vessey I, Conger SA (1994) Requirements specification: learning object, process, and data methodologies. Commun ACM 37(5):102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Dimoka A, Pavlou P, Davis FD (2011) Neuro IS: the potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Inf Syst Res 22(4):687–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Todd PA, Benbasat I (1987) Process tracing methods in decision support systems research: exploring the black box. MIS Q 11(4):493–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Glaholt MG, Reingold EM (2011) Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. J Neurosci Psychol Econ 4:125–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Gegenfurtner A, Lehtinen E, Saljo R (2011) Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professionals domains. Educ Psychol Rev 23:523–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124(3):372–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Cowen L, Ball LJ, Delin J (2002) An eye movement analysis of web page usability. In: Faulkner X, Finlay J, Detienne F (eds) Proceedings of the 16th British HCI group annual conference. 2002, Springer-Verlag, London, pp 317–335

  88. Goldberg JH, Kotval XP (1998) Eye movement-based evaluation of the computer interface. In: Kumar SK (ed) Advances in occupational ergonomics and safety. ISO Press, Amsterdam, pp 529–532

    Google Scholar 

  89. Mayer RE (1983) Thinking, problem solving, cognition. London, W.H. Freeman and Company

    Google Scholar 

  90. Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kagdi J, Yusuf H, Maletic JI (2007) On using eye tracking in empirical assessment of software visualization. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on empirical assessment of software engineering languages and technologies (WEASEL Tech ‘07). ACM, Atlanta, pp 21–22

  92. Sharif B, Maletic JI (2010) An eye-tracking study on the effects of layout in understanding the role of design patterns. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE international conference on software maintenance (ICSM ‘10). Timisoara, pp 1–10

  93. Sharif B, Maletic JI (2009) The effect of layout on the comprehension of UML class diagrams: a controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international workshop on visualizing software for understanding and analysis (VISSOFT 2009). Edmonton, pp 11–18

  94. Cyr D et al (2009) Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method approach. MIS Q 33(3):539–566

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  95. Poole A, Ball LJ (2006) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: current status and future prospects. In: Ghaoui C (ed) Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 211–219

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  96. Armstrong T, Olatunji BO (2009) What they see is what you get: eye tracking of attention in the anxiety disorders. Psychol Sci Agenda. March: p. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/03/science-briefs.aspx

  97. Privitera CM et al (2010) Pupil dilation during visual target detection. J Vis 10(10/3):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  98. Van Gerven PW et al (2004) Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology 41(2):167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Just MA, Carpenter PA (1976) Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognit Psychol 8:441–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Mayer RE (2005) Principles for reducing extrandeous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In: Mayer RE (ed) The cambridge handbook on multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 183–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  102. Newell A, Simon HA, Solving Humanproblem (1972) Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  103. Farzin F et al (2011) Reliability of eye tracking and pupillometry measures in individuals with fragile X syndrome. J Autism Dev Disord 41:1515–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Wooding DS (2002) Fixation maps: quantifying eye-movement traces. In: Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on eye tracking research and applications (ETRA ‘02). ACM, New Orleans, pp 31–36

  105. Kerre EE, Chen G (eds) Fuzzy data modeling at a conceptual level: extending ER/EER concepts. Physica Verlag

  106. Khatri V et al (2014) Capturing Telic/Atelic temporal data semantics: generalizing conventional conceptual models. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 26(3):528–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, 63108, USA

    Palash Bera

  2. UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Andrew Burton-Jones

  3. Sauder School of Business, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada

    Yair Wand

Authors
  1. Palash Bera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Burton-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yair Wand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Palash Bera.

Appendices

Appendix 1: demonstrating the general applicability of the modeling rules

The purpose of this appendix is to provide an indication that the proposed rules can support a range of applications. In particular, we show how they can be used to model four cases in which roles can be salient and which could be, if a method is not available, difficult to model. We use examples from Elmasri and Navathe [43], represented on the left side of the figure. The right side of the figure shows the guided EER models that follow our rules. The annotations in the figure indicate how each rule in Table 3 is brought to bear. For example, the link (1, 2) in Fig. 10 shows that rules 1 and 2 are brought to bear in the identification of university and Person.

  • In Fig. 10, we see a Person who can be in one or more roles (alone or together)—a student and an Employee. To show each as a role, we need to show the linked base classes. Based on the context, these are the university and an Organization.

    Fig. 10
    figure 10

    Scenario 1: an object can play multiple roles (e.g., Person can be student and Employee)

    Full size image

  • In Fig. 11, we see a role that can have two base entity classes—a Personal customer and a corporate customer. To show each as a fulfilling the same role, we need to show the linked base class in this case—a bank. In this case, the Account_Holder can be a Person—inheriting all the Person attributes, or a company—inheriting its attributes.

    Fig. 11
    figure 11

    Scenario 2: possession of the same role by unrelated objects (e.g., an account can be possessed by a Person and a company)

    Full size image

  • In Fig. 12, we see a role that can be further specialized. A Person works for an Organization—being an Employee. Then, the Employee (a role) is used as a base class to derive the meaning of a faculty—a specialization of an Employee. In this case, a faculty is linked to a new base class—a university, which is a subclass of an Organization.

    Fig. 12
    figure 12

    Scenario 3: a role can have a sub-role (e.g., a faculty is a sub-role of Employee)

    Full size image

  • In Fig. 13, we see a Person who takes one or both of two roles—separately or together—a student and an Employee. People who are in both roles obtain a new role with the university—reduced tuition. This is shown by creating an additional level of specialization. The students who are Employees have a reduced tuition with the university.

    Fig. 13
    figure 13

    Scenario 4: an object can play different roles simultaneously (joint role) (e.g., a Person can be student and an Employee at the same time)

    Full size image

Overall, our examples show that that the proposed rules are quite flexible and can model each of these four scenarios.

Appendix 2: guided and unguided EER scripts in the experiment

See Figs. 14 and 15.

Fig. 14
figure 14

Unguided EER script

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Guided EER script

Full size image

Appendix 3: additional detailed results from eye tracking

See Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13 Eye movement analysis of interactions for problem-solving task 1
Full size table
Table 14 Eye movement analysis of interactions for problem-solving task 2
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A. & Wand, Y. Improving the representation of roles in conceptual modeling: theory, method, and evidence. Requirements Eng 23, 465–491 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0275-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0275-9

Keywords