The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework
Abstract
A semiotic framework for evaluating the quality of conceptual models was proposed by (Lindland OI, Sindre G and Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling, IEEE Software 11(2), 41–49) and has later been extended in several works. While the extensions have fixed some of the limitations of the initial framework, other limitations remain. In particular, the framework is too static in its view upon semantic quality, mainly considering models, not modelling activities, and comparing these models to a static domain rather than seeing the model as a facilitator for changing the domain. Also, the framework's definition of pragmatic quality is quite narrow, focusing on understanding, in line with the semiotics of Morris, while newer research in linguistics and semiotics has focused beyond mere understanding, on how the model is used and impact its interpreters. The need for a more dynamic view in the semiotic quality framework is particularly evident when considering process models, which themselves often prescribe or even enact actions in the problem domain, hence a change to the model may also change the problem domain directly. This paper discusses the quality framework in relation to active process models and suggests a revised framework based on this.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
The Knowledge-Creating Company
Nonaka, I. (1998) · The Economic Impact of Knowledge · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1 · Cited by 14,619
POLANYI, M. (1997) · Knowledge in Organisations · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,408
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.4.381 · Cited by 2,904
Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.6.4.350 · Cited by 2,100
In the Age of the Smart Machine
Zuboff, S. (1988) · Cited by 1,516
Understanding quality in conceptual modeling
Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A. (1994) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.268955 · Cited by 873
Self-citationWhy interaction is more powerful than algorithms
Wegner, P. (1997) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/253769.253801 · Cited by 723
Software Development and Reality Construction
(1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-76817-0 · Cited by 299
Cited by
An empirical comparative evaluation of requirements engineering methods
España, S., Condori-Fernandez, N., González, A., & Pastor, Ó. (2010) · Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society · doi:10.1007/s13173-010-0003-5 · Cited by 27
Link Prediction for Completing Graphical Software Models Using Neural Networks
Leblebici, O., Tuglular, T., & Belli, F. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3323591 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., & Jørgensen, H.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-102
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W1966929869
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 38.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000598
- The paper
- Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., & Jørgensen, H. (2006). Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000598
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.