2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An ontology-based Enterprise Architecture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although well structured, EAs are described in natural language fostering ambiguity and lacking of formalization. (Kang et al, 2010) criticize EAs for the lack of detailed models for the components, of modelling the relationship between the components and the lack of a model for implementation. To overcome that drawbacks (Kang et al, 2010) remodelled the EA with ontologies.…”
Section: How To Represent Enterprise Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although well structured, EAs are described in natural language fostering ambiguity and lacking of formalization. (Kang et al, 2010) criticize EAs for the lack of detailed models for the components, of modelling the relationship between the components and the lack of a model for implementation. To overcome that drawbacks (Kang et al, 2010) remodelled the EA with ontologies.…”
Section: How To Represent Enterprise Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Kang et al, 2010) criticize EAs for the lack of detailed models for the components, of modelling the relationship between the components and the lack of a model for implementation. To overcome that drawbacks (Kang et al, 2010) remodelled the EA with ontologies. They took the Federal Enterprise Architecture, that is based on Zachmann's, used the structure of WordNet to describe terms and SBVR to structure the relationships.…”
Section: How To Represent Enterprise Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…He tries to provide meaningful information for the enterprise users, along with their needs and functional scope. Kang et al [17] presented an ontology-based three-level Enterprise Architecture in order to solve the lack of semantic understanding in common among different systems and between human and system and among stakeholders in the enterprise. It emphasizes to use Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) and Fact-oriented approach.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Firstly, there has not been common and exactly semantic understanding between human and system yet and it causes communication problems among humans or among systems or between human and system [17]. In addition, data collected in developing Enterprise Architecture are not based on a common definition of concepts and data communication; for example planner has one definition for action and the developer has another definition; in some cases a specific data is called with different names.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%