Review of 'Ontological Considerations about Events and Endurants'

This report provides a comprehensive review of the conference paper "Ontological Considerations about the Representation of Endurants and Events In Business Models," which examines the challenges of representing events and endurants within business models. The paper highlights the distinction between events, typically addressed in Business Process Modeling, and endurants, which are central to Structural Conceptual Modeling. It explores the ontological differences between these entities, discussing how endurants possess essential and accidental properties and how events are linked to changes in the world. The review delves into the incorporation of events in structural models and endurants in process models, addressing the issues of identity and reference, and proposes modeling considerations that allow for the representation of changing entities. The paper also discusses the relationship between endurants and events, suggesting that events manifest the attributes of endurants, leading to the concept of systematic polysemy. The review concludes with a discussion of modeling patterns that illustrate the relationship between endurants and events, and the application of these concepts to practical examples. The report emphasizes the need for a strong ontological basis to understand the relationship between process and structural domains within business models, which can aid in understanding how to effectively incorporate events within conceptual models.

Ontological Considerations about the Representation of
Endurants and Events
In Business Models
Conference Paper in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2016
By
Giancarlo Guizzardi and Joao Paulo A. Almeida
Name:
Student ID:

Introduction
This essay focuses on reviewing the article titled “Ontological considerations about the
representation of events and endurants in business models”. It is an article published in a book
titled “Business Process Management” by Rio de Janeiro. It covers the proceedings of the
fourteenth international conference on Business Process Management held in Brazil from 18th to
22nd of September 2016. According to this article, events are entities covered in Business Process
Modeling while endurants are focused on in the Structural Conceptual Modeling. These two
entities are divided and this has an impact on conceptual modeling.
This paper summarizes the discussion on the divide between events and endurants and
the ways in which the two can be included on the same model. The discussion focuses on the
considered methods of incorporating a reference to events in structural conceptual models and
endurants in business process models. Events and object-like entities are different in terms of
their ontology. Including them on the same model is the problem under discussion. The article
intends to find a solution to this problem by outlining a few considerations of representing both
events and endurants on business models.
Discussion
Basing on the ontological nature, events can only be covered in a Business Process model
while endurants can be covered in the structural conceptual model (Ajnesh & Durepos, 2016).
This topic highlights their differences in terms of characteristics and the disciplines under which
they are covered.
These are the entities that possess two categories of properties; accidental and essential
properties. Essential properties are those possessed at all times while accidental ones are only
portrayed in some situations. In the article, endurants are compared to the characteristics of a
human being in terms of modal and qualitative. A person’s qualities can change without altering
the identity of that person. Mr. Anderson’s weight can change. However, his identity will remain
the same. In modal properties, Mr. Anderson can be a computer hacker or a student of law.
These two properties are non-physical in such a way that other people cannot see him directly as
a computer hacker. In this case, his weight is an essential property while his occupation is an
accidental property since it can change his identity. Apart from this property, endurants are also
2

entities that are always present with all their parts. Some properties that are prone to change are
there, while others remain the same all the time (Bergener, Delfmann, Burkhard & Winkelmann,
2016).
According to Yuna & Ana (2017), the OntoUML language is the language used in visual
simulation support to simulate structural conceptual models. Simulating these models gives the
modeler an opportunity to identify the qualities of the endurants that can change and those that
remain the same. He/she can also identify which business worlds can be accessed from other
worlds. Events are the name given to such changes according to the article.
Events are links to and from situations in the world and are relations between states of
affairs. Events are endurants, which keep changing from one form to another. That is, the
endurants can, in be created some cases destroyed, or they can also change properties. Events can
also possess qualities that represent temporal and spatial characteristics. For this reason, they
directly depend on endurants for their existence. In the article, this dependence is compared to
the pumping of the heart. It is explained that the activity of the pumping of the heart is the
evidence showing the ability and capability of the heart to pump. It is also compared to a metal
getting attracted to a magnet such that it depicts the ability of the magnet to attract the metal
(Bérard & Delerue, 2010).
After discussing the endurants in structural conceptual models, events in Business
Process models, their characteristics, and relationship, considerations of incorporating them in
the vice versa models are discussed.
Traditionally, endurants have been represented in structural conceptual models (Tran,
2010). Actually, events are hardly included in classical conceptual models. Structural conceptual
models represent events as first-class citizens, despite the fact that there is no basis for guiding
this kind of modeling. A problem arises in the situation where the reference conceptual models
are supposed to clarify concepts and depict characteristics of notions with controversial and
advanced worldviews. To investigate the consequences of representing events in the structural
conceptual models, identity, reference for events, and change are discussed.
In this section, questions are raised in comparison to events with the characteristics of
endurants. The questions of whether events can also possess essential and accidental properties
3

are mentioned. Basing on Mr. Anderson, events are being investigated, whether they also have
qualitative and modal properties and whether they can change their properties and maintain their
identity like endurants. All these questions are answered negatively basing on all classical
axiomatized ontologies of events. The theories depict an event as an extensional entity, which
cannot be defined without the total sum of all its parts. It is also viewed as a succession of the
dynamics that happen around the world. Traditionally, no quality or property of events can
change without altering the identity of the entity. This is the major distinguishing factor between
events and endurants (Elias & Johannesson, 2013).
Mentioned earlier in the article is Mr. Anderson, being used as an example of an
endurants entity. His physical attributes identify him as an endurants. However, the article now
focuses on his life and not just on his physique. His life is a complex event, which is viewed as
the successive exemplification of some of his qualities. In this context, if Mr. Anderson makes a
decision between taking a red pill and a blue pill, his life after taking the red pill is a different
event from the life after taking the blue one. These are considered as two events, which are both
incompatible and independent. From this illustration, it is clear that an endurants can take the
form of an event in some situations (Tbaishat, 2017).
A report by Fabiana et al (2012) is cited in this article, explaining that object identifiers
should work as rigid designators with the ability to pick the same individual in all kinds of
worlds. They refer to object identifiers as special names for referring to objects in the real world.
Each object identifier can only refer to one object. This is referred to as a singular reference. An
example in UML is given such that the extension of a certain class in a class diagram is a group
of object identifiers, which are used in tracing the identity of the same person in different states.
Taking the illustration of Mr. Anderson and the two pills, his life prior taking the pill and
afterward are different. Therefore, this cannot be used as an object identifier.
From the past findings of Saul, Bill & Karen (2011) concerning object identifiers and
events, it is concluded that object identifiers can only refer to events after a point beyond which
there is no possible chance for further branching. This means the object identifiers can only refer
to historical events. Similarly, the life of Mr. Anderson will not be identical to any other life that
results from him taking the pill. The name ‘Mr. Anderson can still be used to refer to him even in
4

his other life. According to the article, this problem has not yet been addressed in any literature
material covering conceptual modeling. Whenever events are incorporated in the Structural
Conceptual models, an assumption is made that they are both anatomic and instantaneous.
Two strategies can be considered to escape or prevent the consequences resulting from
incorporating events and endurants on the same business model. The two premises are involved
that is; object identifiers being rigid designators and events bearing no modal properties.
Strategies result in denying at least one of the premises. Rejecting the first premise should be
accompanied by replacing it with very non-classical semantics for structural conceptual patterns
where the object identifiers do not refer to one thing and do not satisfy rigid designation.
Rejecting the second premise should be followed by developing a very non-classical ontological
theory of events (Faisal, Abu & Ayman, 2012).
A suggested modeling consideration is there that incorporates the two premises and that
allows the use of certain proper names to refer to changing entities, which can also possess
modal properties. Such entities are referred to as existentially dependent endurants.
As mentioned earlier, events are manifestations of ability, capability or qualities of
dispositions. For an event to occur, the possibility of the occurrence must exist to act as a strong
quality of an endurants. Events generally depend on endurants. Consequently, events depend on
dispositions and qualities, which in turn depend on endurants. Given that events existentially
depend on endurants and manifest certain attributes of endurants, these attributes must be present
whenever an event unfolds. It is for this reason that a similar term is used to refer to the events
and the underlying attributes, a case called systematic polysemy, which occurs in language
frequently (Ross, Jan & Stephen, 2011).
In the previous section, It is realized that an endurants underlying an event whenever an
ongoing event is referred to. Such events can change their qualitative nature and remain with the
same identity. In the article under review, a modeling pattern is proposed and it illustrates the
relationship between endurants and events with their parts acting as manifestations. Endurants
are formed by creation events in this model. Creation events start and terminate at specific points
of time. At the termination time point of a creation event, a creation moment of an endurants is
derived (Ross, Jan & Stephen, 2011).
5

Endurants have an active phase in which their qualities and dispositions are manifested
through events that constitute different processes representing their current lives. On the other
hand, they also have an inactive phase, which is compared to happenings like death, finishing an
assignment and terminating a marriage legally. In this phase, the attributes of the endurants
cannot be manifested their qualities become immutable. At this point, it is referred as the
endurant’s final life. This is the complete set of events in the total lifespan of the endurants
during the active phase (Fitzgerald & Rowley, 2016).
A practical illustration is discussed about Olive’s relationship reification issue. He
explains further on the relationship between reified relationships and temporal properties they
possess. An example is given to a man who works on a project for a number of hours per day. At
each time, this employee is committed to a certain task with a specific deadline. From this
example, Olive comes up with three categories of temporal relationship reifications, which
include per instant, per interval and per lifespan (Mair, 2012).
Concluding Remarks
In the Business process, modeling and management, organizational behavior has much
attention as one of the domains. The relationship between domains of architecture in approaches
to enterprise modeling and enterprise architecture has also been developed from this article. The
domain of endurants has also been interrelated with the process domain, which covers the
manner in which business process tasks are structured and evaluated. On the other hand, the
structural domain focuses on the performer and that undergoes change.
In conclusion, the article of the fourteenth conference proceedings clearly shows that
strong ontological evidence is needed to explain the relationship between the process and
structural domains. Such an account can help in understanding the manner in which events can
be included in a structural conceptual model. A suggested pattern of modeling has been
discussed, which deals with endurants and events in their different nature. In this model,
endurants coexist with related events and complement each other through defined relations.
Reified events should be treated in the same manner. The conceptual foundations and ideas
discussed in the article can help in understanding approaches to artifact-centric business process
modeling. The focus is on real-world objects that are pervasive in the world of business and not
6

on data objects. The business reality can be captured accurately by representing objects and their
connection to events.
7

Bibliography
Ajnesh P. & Durepos G., 2016. From margin to center: listening to silenced subjectivities in International
Business. Critical perspectives on International Business, 12(3), pp.218-21.
Bérard C. & Delerue H., 2010. A cross cultural analysis of intellectual asset protection in SMEs: The effect‐
of environmental scanning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(2), pp.167-83.
Bergener P., Delfmann P., Burkhard W. & Winkelmann A., 2016. Detecting potential weaknesses in
business processes: An exploration of semantic pattern matching in process models. Business Process
Management Journal, 21(1), pp.25-54.
Elias M. & Johannesson P., 2013. A context based process semantic annotation model for a process‐
model repository. Business Process Management Journal, 19(3), pp.404-30.
Fabiana J. S, Claudia C., Flávia M. S., Julio C. S. P. L & Thaís V. B., 2012. Aspect oriented business process‐
modeling: analyzing open issues. Business Process Management Journal, 18(6), pp.964-91.
Faisal A., Abu R. & Ayman A. I., 2012. A business process modeling based approach to investigate‐
complex processes: Software development case study. Business Process Management Journal, 18(1),
pp.122-37.
Fitzgerald R. & Rowley C., 2016. MNCs from the Asia Pacific in the global economy: examples and lessons
from Japan, Korea, China and India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 22(4), pp.30-33.
Leslie H. & Webster P., 2012. International Business Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Publishers.
Mair, J., 2012. A Review of Business Events Literature. Event Management, 16(2), pp.133-41.
Natschläger C. & Verena G., 2013. A layered approach for actor modelling in business processes.
Business Process Management Journal, 19(6), pp.917-32.
Rashid K. & Aslam H., 2012. Business excellence through total supply chain quality management. Asian
Journal on Quality, 13(3), pp.309-24.
Ross B., Jan R. & Stephen W., 2011. Using virtaul worlds for collaborative Business Process Modeling.
Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), pp.546-64.
Saul J. B, Bill B. & Karen F., 2011. New business models for emerging media and entertainment revenue
opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), pp.44-53.
Tbaishat, D., 2017. Business process modelling using ARIS: process architecture. Library Management,
38(3), pp.88-107.
8

Tran, B., 2010. International business ethics. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 9(3), pp.236-
55.
Yuna R. & Ana L. G., 2017. International environmental NGOs and the politics of genetically modified
organisms: Rethinking resistance in international business. Critical perspectives on international
business, 13(1), pp.23-37.
9