The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding quality in conceptual modeling
Abstract
With the increasing focus on early development as a major factor in determining overall quality, many researchers are trying to define what makes a good conceptual model. However, existing frameworks often do little more than list desirable properties. The authors examine attempts to define quality as it relates to conceptual models and propose their own framework, which includes a systematic approach to identifying quality-improvement goals and the means to achieve them. The framework has two unique features: it distinguishes between goals and means by separating what you are trying to achieve in conceptual modeling from how to achieve it (it has been made so that the goals are more realistic by introducing the notion of feasibility); and it is closely linked to linguistic concepts because modeling is essentially making statements in some language.>
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
Software Requirements Analysis and Specification
(2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-28132-0_3 · Cited by 277
A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering
Roman (1985) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.1985.1662861 · Cited by 248
Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis
Olle, T. W., Sol, H. G., & Tully, C. J. (1983) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 142
Requirements engineering — Getting right from wrong
Feather, M. S. (1991) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3540547428_68 · Cited by 10
Cited by
Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69 · Cited by 755
Moody, D. L. (2005) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.005 · Cited by 469
Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., & Jørgensen, H. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000598 · Cited by 354
Self-citationHow to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software
Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015 · Cited by 323
Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study
Bandara, W., Gable, G. G., & Rosemann, M. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000546 · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 42-49
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075886324
- Cited by
- 873
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 26.01
- 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: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/52.268955
- The paper
- Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.268955
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.