Business process management employs process models and event logs to represent the behavior of the information systems under study. Traditional case-centric notions consider the order of activities and events in isolated process instances. The emerging field of object-centric processes challenges this assumption by putting objects in the center. Object-centric process mining and modeling approaches identify the structure of co-evolving data objects that influence the behavior of an information system to provide a comprehensive view of the system behavior. Object-centricity has been investigated independently in process modeling and in process mining, which resulted in the coexistence of seemingly contradictory assumptions and definitions. As a community effort, this research manifesto relates and aligns existing terminologies, definitions, and perspectives to provide a common ground for current and future research in object-centric business process management. Based on the current state of research, we propose a conceptualization that sets process models and event logs in relation to the information system’s behavior and the execution data it generates. The conceptualization aims at aligning different terminologies and, thus, providing a basis to model and analyze behavioral characteristics. Building on this common ground, we identify open research challenges along the most relevant research areas in object-centric process management. For each research area, its current status is investigated and an outline of the most relevant research challenges is presented.

Conceptual modeling is a complex and demanding task. It is a task centered around the challenge of representing a portion of the world in a way that is objective, understandable, shareable, and reusable by a community of practitioners, who rely on models to design and implement software or to clarify the concepts within a given domain. The difficulty of conceptual modeling stems from the inherent limitations of human representation abilities, which cannot fully capture the infinite richness and diversity of the world, nor the endless possibilities for description enabled by language. Significant effort has been invested in addressing these challenges, particularly in the creation of effective and reusable conceptual models, which have presented numerous difficulties. This paper explores conceptual modeling from a philosophical standpoint, proposing that conceptual models should not be viewed merely as the static representational output of an a priori activity, subject to modification only during a preliminary design phase. Instead, they should be seen as dynamic artifacts that require continuous design, adaptation, and evolution from their inception to their application, which may account for multiple purposes. The paper seeks to highlight the importance of understanding conceptual modeling primarily as an act of communication, rather than just a process of information transmission. It also aims to clarify the distinction between these two aspects and to examine the potential implications of adopting a communicative approach to modeling . These implications extend not only to the tools and methodologies used in modeling but also to the ethical considerations that arise from such an approach.

The terms ‘semantics’ and ‘ontology’ are increasingly appearing together with ‘explanation’, not only in the scientific literature, but also in everyday social interactions, in particular, within organizations. Ontologies have been shown to play a key role in supporting the semantic interoperability of data and knowledge representation structures used by information systems. With the proliferation of applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in different settings and the increasing need to guarantee their explainability (but also their interoperability) in critical contexts, the term ‘explanation’ has also become part of the scientific and technical jargon of modern information systems engineering. However, all of these terms are also significantly overloaded. In this paper, we address several interpretations of these notions, with an emphasis on their strong connection. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (e.g., conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their so-called truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one’s ontology that are responsible for the truth of a description. To illustrate this methodology, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain a symbolic model encoded in the de facto standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Furthermore, we revisit a proposal for quality criteria for explanations from philosophy of science to assess our approach. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the subarea of Artificial Intelligence known as Explainable AI (XAI).

The complexity of an (ontology-driven) conceptual model highly correlates with the complexity of the domain and software for which it is designed. With that in mind, an algorithm for producing ontology-driven conceptual model abstractions was previously proposed. In this paper, we empirically evaluate the quality of the abstractions produced by it. First, we have implemented and tested the last version of the algorithm over a FAIR catalog of models represented in the ontology-driven conceptual modeling language OntoUML. Second, we performed three user studies to evaluate the usefulness of the resulting abstractions as perceived by modelers. This paper reports on the findings of these experiments and reflects on how they can be exploited to improve the existing algorithm.

Multi-domain model catalogs serve as empirical sources of knowledge and insights about specific domains, about the use of a modeling language’s constructs, as well as about the patterns and anti-patterns recurrent in the models of that language crosscutting different domains. They may support domain and language learning, model reuse, knowledge discovery for humans, and reliable automated processing and analysis if built following generally accepted quality requirements for scientific data management. More specifically, not unlike scientific (meta)data, models should be shared according to the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability). In this paper, we report on the construction of a FAIR model catalog for Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling research, a trending paradigm lying at the intersection of conceptual modeling and ontology engineering in which the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and OntoUML emerged among the most adopted technologies. The catalog, publicly available at https://w3id.org/ontouml-models, currently includes over one hundred and forty models, developed in a variety of contexts and domains.

Although the knowledge about human genomics is available to all scientists, information about this scientific breakthrough can often be difficult to fully comprehend and share. A Conceptual Schema of the Human Genome was previously developed to assist in describing human genome-related knowledge, by representing a holistic view of the relevant concepts regarding its biology and underlying mechanisms. This model should become helpful for any researcher who works with human genomics data. We, therefore, perform the process of ontological unpacking on a portion of the model, to facilitate domain understanding and data exchange among heterogeneous systems. The ontological unpacking is a transformation of an input conceptual model into an enriched model based on a foundational ontology. The preliminary analysis and enrichment process are supported by the ontological conceptual modeling language OntoUML, which has been applied previously to complex models to gain ontological clarity. The value of the used method is first assessed from a theoretical point of view: the transformation results in significant, diverse modeling implications regarding the characterization of biological entities, the representation of their changes over time, and, more specifically, the description of chemical compounds. Since the ontological unpacking process is costly, an empirical evaluation is conducted to study the practical implications of applying it in a real learning setting. A particularly complex domain such as metabolic pathways is either described by adopting a traditional conceptual model or explained through an ontologically unpacked model obtained from a traditional model. Our research is evidence that including a strong ontological foundation in traditional conceptual models is useful. It contributes to designing models that convey biological domains better than the original models.

This paper contributes to the philosophical foundations of conceptual modeling by addressing a number of foundational questions such as: What is a conceptual model? Among models used in computer science, which are conceptual, and which are not? How are conceptual models different from other models used in the Sciences and Engineering? The paper takes a stance in answering these questions and, in order to do that, it draws from a broad literature in philosophy, cognitive science, Logics, as well as several areas of Computer Science (including Databases, Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems Engineering, among others). After a brief history of conceptual modeling, the paper addresses the aforementioned questions by proposing a characterization of conceptual models with respect to conceptual semantics and ontological commitments. Finally, we position our work w.r.t. to a "Reference Framework for Conceptual" modeling recently proposed in the literature.