Ontological and linguistic metamodelling revisited: A language use approach Owen Eriksson a,⇑ , Brian Henderson-Sellers b , Pär J. Ågerfalk a a Department of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University, Box 513, 751 20 UPPSALA, Sweden b School of Software, University of Technology, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Sydney, Australia article info Article history: Received 4 July 2012 Received in revised form 31 May 2013 Accepted 19 July 2013 Available online 9 August 2013 Keywords: Concepts Speech act theory Set theory Metamodel abstract Context: Although metamodelling is generally accepted as important for our understanding of software and systems development, arguments about the validity and utility of ontological versus linguistic meta- modelling continue. Objective: The paper examines the traditional, metamodel-focused construction of modelling languages in the context of language use, and particularly speech act theory. These concepts are then applied to the problems introduced by the ‘‘Orthogonal Classification Architecture’’ that is often called the ontological/ linguistic paradox. The aim of the paper is to show how it is possible to overcome these problems. Method: The paper adopts a conceptual–analytical approach by revisiting the published arguments and developing an alternative metamodelling architecture based on language use. Results: The analysis shows that when we apply a language use perspective of meaning to traditional modelling concepts, a number of incongruities and misconceptions in the traditional approaches are revealed – issues that are not evident in previous work based primarily on set theory. Clearly differenti- ating between the extensional and intensional aspects of class concepts (as sets) and also between objects (in the social world) and things (in the physical world) allows for a deeper understanding to be gained of the relationship between the ontological and linguistic views promulgated in the modelling world. Conclusions: We propose that a viewpoint that integrates language use ideas into traditional modelling (and metamodelling) is vital, and stress that meaning is not inherent in the physical world; meaning, and thus socially valid objects, are constructed by use of language, which may or may not establish a one-to-one correspondence relationship between objects and physical things. Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Conceptual modelling is used in information systems and soft- ware development to enable conceptual understanding of the sys- tems, the information they contain, and the processes by which they come about. Conceptual models facilitate the understanding of information systems requirements and, more generally, enhance the quality of information systems development. Conceptual mod- elling is a term commonly used to indicate modelling in the soft- ware context that is independent of the constraints of programming languages. It focuses on the description of real-world (business-focused) problems and how to represent them in models and could therefore be loosely related to requirements engineer- ing, business systems analysis, and enterprise engineering. Modelling uses a modelling language to communicate informa- tion about the models, be they for system design or for processes and methodologies. A modelling language consists of, inter alia, an abstract syntax, a concrete syntax (notation) 1 and semantics. To ensure quality and consistency, modelling languages need to be clearly defined so that their use is consistent across development teams, countries, etc. Much of the work in modelling languages for computing contexts (software engineering, information systems) over the last several decades has been focused on ‘general purpose modelling languages’, such as the now standard Unified Modeling Language™, UML Ò [1,2]. More recently, domain-specific modelling languages (DSMLs) have been intensively researched and developed to practical solutions [3]. Here, we focus on general purpose model- ling languages and eschew discussions about DSMLs. Although there are several ways of writing down formal defini- tions of modelling languages, one frequently used is that of the metamodel, defined as ‘a model of models’, which defines the ab- stract syntax, often itself expressed using UML’s notation (typically a class diagram) together with additional behavioural and seman- tic constraints (perhaps using OCL or a similar logic-based 0950-5849/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.008 ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University, Box 513, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail address: owen.eriksson@im.uu.se (O. Eriksson). 1 Although an important element, we do not discuss the notational aspects of a modelling language in any detail in this paper. Information and Software Technology 55 (2013) 2099–2124 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Information and Software Technology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof