Concept modeling vs. data modeling in practice

Bodil Nistrup MadsenHanne Erdman Thomsen
Table of contents

Terminology work is concerned with the clarification of concepts and with the linguistic designations used to represent the concepts in communication. According to terminology theory (ISO 704, 2009), concepts within a subject field are interrelated and form concept systems. These give a description of the concepts and relationships within the subject field in question (ideally) shared by the community of experts within the field. Concept clarification is vital for the successful development of IT systems and yet this stage is often neglected. Developing a terminological ontology as a basis for the development of a data model gives a solid foundation for the data modeling phases.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Carpenter, Bob
1992The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CEN CWA 15045
2004. CEN Workshop Agreement: Multilingual Catalogue Strategies for eCommerce and eBusiness. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN).Google Scholar
“Data Modeling - Conceptual, Logical, And Physical Data Models.”
Hoffer, Jeffrey A., Mary B. Prescott, and Fred R. Mcfadden
2005Modern Database Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
ISO 704
2009Terminology work - Principles and methods. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO/FDIS 24156-1
2013Graphic notations for concept modelling in terminology work - Part 1: Guidelines for using UML notation in terminology work. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup
1998“Typed Feature Structures for Terminology Work - Part I.” In LSP - Identity and Interface - Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes, edited by Lita Lundquist, Heribert Picht and Jacques Qistgaard, 339-348. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup and Anna Elisabeth Odgaard
2010“From Concept Models to Conceptual Data Models.” In Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Conference 2010 - Proceedings, edited by Una Bhreathnack and Fionnuala De Barra-Cusack, 537-544. Dublin: Fiontar.Google Scholar
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup and Hanne Erdman Thomsen
2009“Terminological Concept Modelling and Conceptual Data Modelling.International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies (IJMSO) 4(4):239-249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup, Hanne Erdman Thomsen, and Carl Vikner
2002“Computer Assisted Ontology Structuring.” In Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Conference 2002 - Proceedings, edited by Alan Melby, 77-82. Nancy: INRIA.Google Scholar
2004“Principles of a System for Terminological Concept Modelling.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, edited by Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Fransisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira, Rute Costa and Raquel Silva, 15-19. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup, Hanne Erdman Thomsen, and Annemette Wenzel
2006“I-Term for NORDTERM.” In Terminology Design. Quality Criteria and Evaluation Methods (TermEval), edited by Rute Costa, Fidélia Ibekwe-SanJuan, Susanne Lervad, Marie-Claude L’Homme, Adeline Nazarenko and Henrik Nilsson. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Accessed April 25, 2014. http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2006/.Google Scholar
The Danisch Veterinary and Food Administration
Thomsen, Hanne Erdman
1997 “Feature Specifications Applied to the Field of Life Insurance.” Terminology Science and Research - Journal of the International Institute for Terminology Research 8(1/2):21-36.Google Scholar
1998“Typed Feature Structures for Terminology Work - Part II.” In LSP - Identity and Interface - Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes, edited by Lita Lundquist, Heribert Picht and Jacques Qistgaard, 349-359. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar