Ontology-Driven Re-engineering of Business Systems Chris Partridge 1,2 and Sergio de Cesare 1 1 Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, U.K. {firstname.lastname}@brunel.ac.uk 2 BORO Solutions Ltd. London, U.K. partridgec@borogroup.co.uk Abstract. The aim of the tutorial is to provide a practical introduction for re- searchers and practitioners to the BORO methodology, an ontology-based sys- tems re-engineering and modernisation approach. At the core of the methodolo- gy is the BORO Foundation. The tutorial will firstly introduce the foundation and then the methodology. It will start with a series of worked examples that explain the philosophical principles underlying the foundation. These will then be developed in further business based worked examples to illustrate how the methodology works and how the philosophical principles drive the methodolo- gy and analysis. The examples will showcase how the use of BORO promotes flexibility and reuse of the re-engineered models. Keywords: Ontology-driven re-engineering, BORO, foundational ontology, perdurantism, extensionalism, business systems. 1 Introduction The aim of the tutorial is to provide a practical introduction to the BORO methodolo- gy for researchers and practitioners, giving them a feel for how the methodology can be applied and the benefits it brings. This will involve exploring the methodology’s philosophical foundation; however, looking at alternative foundations, the approaches these lead to and the relative benefits these bring is out of scope. BORO is a systems and data re-engineering methodology developed by Partridge [1], which has been successfully deployed in various industrial sectors including fi- nance, oil and gas, and defence. BORO comprises of a foundational ontology, bearing the same name, and it is strongly rooted in Philosophical ontology. BORO influenced the ISO 15926 standard [2] and inspired the upper level ontology of the International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification for exchange Group [3], adopted by the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). Philosophically the BORO Foundation adopts the following metaphysical choices: (1) a realist stance towards ontology, that is it takes for granted a mind-independent real world; (2) a revisionary stance – accepting that if we want better models, we need to change the ways we look at the world; (3) completeness categories based upon ex- -- 1 of 2 -- tensional criteria of identity and (4) a 4D and possible worlds approach as these fit best with its commitment to extensionalism [4]. Consequently BORO is strongly grounded in physical reality and the models pro- duced map directly to real world objects in a one-to-one manner. This becomes ap- parent once perdurantism (or 4D) is well understood [5]. From a perdurantist perspec- tive all individual objects (also known as elements or bodies) exist because they have a 4-dimensional spatiotemporal extension (or extent). This extent defines an element’s identity. As a consequence an individual object is never fully present at any given in- stant, but only partially present. In its lifetime an object goes through states (or stag- es). For example, a person goes through the stages of childhood and adulthood. In perdurantism change is therefore explained via successive temporal parts. The tutorial will demonstrate how perdurantism and extensionalism together allow the ontologist to produce more flexible and reusable models of real world domains. The tutorial will firstly introduce the foundation and then the methodology. It will start with a series of worked examples that explain the philosophical principles under- lying the foundation. These will then be developed in further business based worked examples (e.g., see [2], [6], [7], [8]) to illustrate how the methodology works and how the philosophical principles drive the methodology and analysis. The examples will showcase how the use of BORO promotes flexibility and reuse of the re-engineered models. References 1. Partridge, C., Business Objects Re-Engineering For Re-Use, 1st edition, Butterworth- Heinemann, 1996 2. ISO, Industrial automation systems and integration -- Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities -- Part 1: Overview and fundamental principles, http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue _detail.htm?csnumber=29556, accessed 07/04/2013 3. IDEAS Group: The IDEAS Model, http://www.ideasgroup.org/foundation/, accessed 07/04/2013 4. Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., de Cesare, S., Guidelines for Developing Ontological Architectures in Modelling and Simulation. A. Tolk (Ed.): Ontology, Epistemology, and Teleology of Modeling and Simulation: Philosophical Principles for Intelligent M&S Applications. Springer-Verlag, Germany, 2013 5. Sider, T.: Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press, USA (2002) 6. Daga, A., de Cesare, S., Lycett, M., Partridge, C., An Ontological Approach for Recovering Legacy Business Content, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05), Los Alamitos, California: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2005 7. de Cesare, S., Geerts, G.L., Toward a Perdurantist Ontology of Contracts. M. Bajec and J. Eder (Eds.): CAiSE 2012 Workshops, LNBIP 112, 85–96, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012 8. de Cesare, S., Foy, G., Partridge, C., Re-engineering Data with 4D Ontologies and Graph Databases. CAiSE 2013 Workshops, LNBIP, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013 -- 2 of 2 -- Ontology-Driven Re-engineering of Business Systems Tutorial CAiSE 2013 19 th May 2013 Chris Partridge and Sergio de Cesare Brunel University { firstname.lastname }@ brunel.ac.uk and partridgec@borogroup.co.uk 1 Agenda Orientation Key Aspects of BORO Ontological hierarchies and patterns A simple example of BORO analysis 2 Orientation 3 What kind of business systems? Large Operational Enterprise Systems ERP Systems CRM Systems FX Settlement Systems Trading Accounting Systems Retail POS Systems Logistics Systems Air Defence Systems Semantic Web Type Applications “Collective Knowledge” Systems Social networking – Facebook Wikis Bio-medical dictionaries Inference Logics – first order, description 4 style.visibility style.visibility Where to start re-engineering? Reference: Griethuysen, J van, "ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695 - Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base.," ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695, ANSI, 1982. Starting point for re-engineering 5 style.visibility style.visibility See this as a separation of concerns Based upon a separation of concerns (similar to OMG’s MDA divisions) Layered concerns, where each concern builds upon all previous concerns. Area of Application Domain Ontology Layer 6 style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility Ontology-driven: So what is ‘ontology’? A modern description of a philosophical ontology (Lowe - 1995) is; “the set of things whose existence is acknowledged by a particular theory or system of thought” Translating this into software terms; “a particular theory or system of thought” = the software application, the data the ontology = “the set of things” the data refers to This helps to make clear that philosophical ontology is about understanding: What things exist? What kinds of things exist? Enables us to understand (for example) when two things are different or exactly the same (identical) Making a case for philosophical ontology: Business software systems should model real-world business domains Philosophical ontology provides a real-world grounding for these models It provides (quality) assurance that the software reflects the business world 7 Real World Objects 8 style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h A ‘far side’ approach to ontology Assume: things are just as they appear JLI –– approach Just Label It ‘ontology’- lite Intellectualise this as the ‘transparent vision thesis’: modern discussion: (E.g.) Goodwin, Charles (1996). Transparent Vision. Interaction and Grammar. E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff and S. Thompson. p. 370-404 .) See ODISE Keynote – CAiSE 2011) 9 style.visibility Are things what they seem? Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked me: ‘ Why do people say it is more logical to think that the sun turns around the Earth than Earth rotating around its own axis?’ I answered: ‘I think because it seems as if the sun turns around the Earth.’ ‘ Good,’ he said, ‘but how would it have been if it had seemed as if the Earth rotates around its own axis then?’ Elizabeth Anscombe : An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus ’ (London, 1959 ) p.151 10 If they are not? If there is a difference between Appearance and Reality T hen the ’transparent vision thesis’ is false Then we need an industrial-strength way of uncovering reality This is what BORO is designed to do First stage of re-engineering is uncovering the existing system’s reality 11 What is BORO? - background BORO includes: A methodology and A foundational ontology BORO includes a systems and data re-engineering methodology It has been successfully deployed in various industrial sectors including finance, oil and gas, and defence. BORO includes a foundational ontology, strongly rooted in philosophical ontology. I nfluenced the ISO 15926 standard and I nspired the upper level ontology of the International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification for exchange (IDEAS) Group, adopted by the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework ( DoDAF ). 12 An apparently simple “set of things” A philosophical ontology (Lowe - 1995 ) is; “the set of things whose existence is acknowledged by a particular [application]” 13 A simple “set of things” A initial set of ‘facts’; John John enrols on an undergraduate programme becoming a student The standard ontological question: What things exist? Recall Lowe’s definition of ontology as “ a set of things … “ In simple cases like this, we should be able to list the set of things that exist. Looks simple, but in this case raises deep questions about how to treat change Highlights we have to make ‘ontological choices’ about what exists One choice is between ways of thinking about change; 4D and 3D 14 One way of thinking about change: 4D Perdurantism or 4D An individual thing has a four-dimensional extension (or extent) in the universe (i.e., the region of space-time that it occupies) Identity is defined by the thing’s four-dimensional extension Change is the individual thing having states 15 Declaration of interest: BORO is 4D This is a criterion of identity style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility Another way of thinking about change: 3D Endurantism or 3D A 3D object is wholly present at any given instant and persists by ‘sweeping’ through time While wholly present at all moments of its existence, an object preserves its identity via a set of essential attributes Change is when the 3D object acquires or loses properties 16 style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility A BORO 4D Visualisation Tool: Space-Time Diagram 17 Taken from Sider : http://tedsider.org/papers/temporal_parts.pdf The ‘ Perdurantist ’ 4D choice John extends through space and time. ‘John as a Student’ is a temporal stage of John These are different because they occupy different spatio -temporal extensions Therefore, two things exist. 18 John Space Time John’s UG Student State … as opposed to the Endurantist 3D choice Typical endurantist (3D) perspective There is just one thing; John. John is born a person and dies a person; he is always a person. John becomes an instance of student when he enrols. John stops being an instance of student when he leaves university. 19 Counting the “set of things” In the 4D case; John John student-state In the 3D case; (just) John Different choices, different counts 20 Another simple ‘set of things’ The ‘fact’ that Barack Obama is the President of the United States There are definitely two things in play; Barack Obama President of the United States Again, the ‘fact’ looks simple, but it raises deep ontological questions There is some kind of relation between these two things, but what is it? 21 Visualizing 4D Obama: a 4D - space-time m ap Time Space Obama Obama President of USA President of USA Same stage 22 ‘ Perdurantist ’ 4D Perspective Obama is the President of the USA because they share a stage. At those points in time, they occupy the same spatio -temporal extensions Obama and The President of the USA are different because they occupy different spatio -temporal extensions 23 style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility Explanatory force Explaining the ‘ is ’ in “Obama is the President of the USA now” (4D) because there is a stage of both that is literally the same (3D) because (?) Obama is now occupying a role … this is explained by the particular 3D ontological choices made (e.g. qua entities) 24 Counting the “ set of things” Easy in the 4D case: Obama President of the USA Obama-stage of President of the USA AKA President of the USA-stage of Obama 3D case depends on which ontological position one takes on a variety of topics. 25 Business systems perspective – representing change Business systems need to represent and store information about changes Currently no ‘standard’ approach Be good to have a foundation that has the representation of change in the domain ‘ built-in ’. Ontological foundations – such as BORO – provide this And ‘change’ is only one of the ontological aspects missing a foundation. 26 Examples illustrate Simple ontological ‘count the things’ test The question may be simple, but providing the ontological answer is not so ‘transparent’ Examples illustrate one ontological choice, but there are a range of choices, need to be clear what has been chosen (See Partridge (2002) Note : A Couple of Meta-Ontological Choices for Ontological Architectures for a list of the main choices. The BORO Foundation is an industrially tested packaged set of ontological choices A kind of Ontological Architecture 27 Key Aspects of BORO 28 BORO Introduction One ‘tool’ in the BORO Toolset is a foundational ontology. In terms, of the earlier example, BORO is a perdurantist , extensional upper level ontology. However, there are a range of ontological choices that the foundation needs to address. 29 BORO’s Ontological choices {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Ontological Characteristic BORO’s choice Extensionalism versus non- extensionalism – I – Universals extensionalism Extensionalism versus non- extensionalism – II – Particulars extensionalism First versus Higher Order Universals higher order universals Perdurantism versus endurantism perdurantism Presentism versus eternalism eternalism Absolute versus relative space, time and space-time relative space-time Modally extended versus unextended individuals unextended individuals Materialism and non-materialism materialism Topology of time – branching or linear. linear See Partridge, C. (2002). LADSEB-CNR - Technical report 06/02 - Note: A Couple of Meta-Ontological Choices for Ontological Architectures . 30 Other ontological choices BORO has adopted: a realist stance towards ontology; that takes for granted a mind-independent real world; a revisionary stance; accepting that if we want better models, we may need to revise the ways we classify the world; a categorical approach to the top level of the ontology An extensional criteria of identity for all ontological categories 31 Making ontological choices They are not independent, so need to be made consistently. Choices need to reflect the enterprise system ontology’s (engineering) goals. 32 (Our) Basis for making the choices Based upon the notion of what makes a good scientific theory. Six ( Kuhnian ) characteristics: Generality. The degree by which the scope of the types in the improved model can be increased without the loss of information. Simplicity. The degree by which the model can be made less complex. Explanatory power. The ability of the improved model to give increased meaning. Fruitfulness. The degree to which the improved model can meet currently unspecified requirements or is easily extendable to do so. Objectivity. The ability of the model to provide a more objective (shared) understanding of the world : in particular, to index a thing to its mode of existence as opposed to its mode of representation and/or application. Precision. The ability of the improved model to give a more precise picture of the business object. 33 A strong categorical top ontology 34 BORO’s categorical, extensional top ontology In a ‘strong’ categorical top ontology, each category has a criterion of identity. In BORO’s case, this is an extensional criterion of identity. A categorical top ontology lists all the ‘categories’ of things that exist. 35 One category - tuples Useful subtypes of couples are: typeInstances : relations between a types and its instances, e.g. (Persons, William) superSubTypes : subset relations between types, e.g. (Animals, Dogs or Red, Crimson) powertypeInstances : relation between a type and its powertype wholeParts : relation between a whole and its parts, e.g. (John, John’s Heart) temporalPartOf : relation between a temporal part and its whole, e.g. (John, John’s childhood) 36 A tuple example Note how the objects are interconnected 37 style.visibility Ontological hierarchies and patterns Super-sub-type, whole-part and type-instance 38 Historical ontology hierarchies Historically, a key organising device for ontologies is the hierarchy. Here are various pictures of the Tree of Porphyry 39 style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility Key BORO hierarchies Three core hierarchies super-sub-type type instance whole part Hierarchies provide the framework for the ontology Aim to maximise expressivity Children can have multiple parents Multiple inheritance (super-sub-type) Multiple classification (type-instance) Types can be instances of types – higher order types 40 Common re-usable patterns Provide a general pattern that can be re-used in more specific situations. Foundation Examples; Whole part Named by Happens in Located in Domain examples Agreement 41 A simple example of BORO analysis FX Trade 42 43 style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h 44 style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h style.visibility ppt_w ppt_h Any questions?