Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Disentangling the schema turn: Restoring the information base to conceptual modelling

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that conceptual modelling's schema-only style is not fundamental but a response to 1970s limits, reversible by modern pipelines.

desk verdict The schema-turn diagnosis is a genuinely useful reframing, but the paper's central claim outruns its evidence because bCLEARer is never shown to avoid schema/base separation under the paper's own taxonomy. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01617 v1 pith:TU4JSQLA submitted 2025-09-01 cs.DB cs.AIcs.SE

Chris Partridge , Andrew Mitchell , Sergio de Cesare , Oscar Xiberta Soto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AIcs.SE
keywords conceptualmodellingschematurninformationbasemodularityarchitecturalstylehylomorphismpipeline-basedschema-and-basemodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Conceptual modelling in computer science has crystallized around the schema: a conceptual schema completely separated from its information base, to the point where 'conceptual model' usually means just the schema. This paper claims that the schema turn is not fundamental. It reads the early history—Codd, CODASYL, Mealy, Chen, ANSI-SPARC/ISO—and argues the separation was a sensible response to two niche pressures: greenfield projects whose base data was not machine-readable, and 1970s technology that could not scale to instance-level data. Because modern technology removes both pressures, the authors argue, an inclusive schema-and-base conceptual model becomes practical, enabling more automated and empirically motivated practices. The paper develops a modularity framework and uses bCLEARer as a working example to show that this wider design space is real.

What carries the argument

Key machinery is the hylomorphic modularity framework: an adaptation of Aristotle's form/matter distinction, renamed formal/material, for describing the modular structure of computer applications. It separates the form of a representation from the content distinctions that motivate modularity, and classifies mixing into separated, aggregated, and integrated styles. The schema/base distinction is one material distinction—classes versus instances—that can be formally realized in different ways; the schema turn is the separated realization. The framework lets the paper plot historical and possible architectures on one landscape and identify the inclusive schema-and-base style as an available, u

What would settle it

Run the same package-application migration twice: once with the schema-first two-mapping architecture (source schema to common schema to target schema, then map the base across twice) and once with a single inclusive schema-and-base pipeline mapping the physical system as a whole. Track when conceptual mapping errors are first detected and the cost of fixing them. If the inclusive pipeline does not detect errors earlier or lower total cost, the paper's practical claim fails; if an integrated schema-and-base model is infeasible at realistic base volumes even with modern tooling, the claim that

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the schema turn—the complete separation of the information base from the conceptual schema—is an evolutionary adaptation to a vanished niche, not a conceptual necessity. The evidence is historical: the earliest conceptual-modelling threads (the relational model, CODASYL, entity-relationship work, ANSI-SPARC) show conceptual models that included schema and data together, or describe a separation that was explicitly practical. The paper identifies the pressures that produced the separated style: greenfield development made the base unavailable in machine-readable form, and under-powered technology could not scale to large instance-level data. It

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the causal claim that the schema turn emerged from 1970s technical limits and greenfield data scarcity rather than from something required by representation itself; if the type/instance split is a necessary feature of any model, removing those constraints would not make the turn non-fundamental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the schema turn is an optional style, then database textbooks and schema-centric CASE, UML, and MDE tools are teaching one historical practice, not the only possible form of conceptual modelling.
  • In package application migration, a single schema-and-base module mapped as a whole avoids the 'shift right' cost of finding conceptual mapping errors only during late volume testing.
  • Inclusive schema-and-base modelling moves the core of modelling from manual human editing into an automated data pipeline, making observability and inspectability necessary engineering practices.
  • With schema and base together from the start, design decisions can be tested empirically against the information base, using what the paper calls epistemic actions, instead of relying on purely rational analysis.
  • The same modularity landscape suggests that more novel conceptual-modelling architectures are likely discoverable beyond the inclusive schema-and-base style.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if the schema/base split is a niche adaptation rather than an ontological necessity, then longstanding debates about whether instance data belongs in conceptual models are really disputes about tooling and project context, and should be settled by cost and error data.
  • Extending the germline analogy, in any long-lived information system the information base is the persistent lineage while schemas are replaceable vehicles; this would carry the paper's argument into data migration, data warehousing, and digital preservation, where the base is the invariant.
  • The paper's 'two worlds' rereading—conceptual and logical models as evolving prototypes that both show and tell—points beyond its explicit claims: the platform-independent/platform-specific split in model-driven engineering may itself be a residue of schema-centricity.
  • A testable extension the authors do not run: a side-by-side comparison of schema-first and schema-and-base pipeline modelling on the same reengineering task, measuring time-to-error-detection and cost of fixes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the near-universal separation of a conceptual schema from its information base in computer-science conceptual modelling—what it calls the 'schema turn'—is historically contingent rather than fundamental. It develops a hylomorphic modularity framework with separated/aggregated/integrated styles, reads Codd/CODASYL, Mealy/Chen, and ANSI-SPARC/ISO as showing the gradual emergence of schema/base separation, attributes that separation to 1970s technology and greenfield projects, and uses the bCLEARer pipeline as an example of an inclusive schema-and-base alternative. It concludes that modern technology may make the schema turn a temporary evolutionary detour and that the design space for conceptual modelling is wider than currently assumed.

Significance. If the thesis were established, it would challenge a taken-for-granted assumption in database textbooks and open new research directions in pipeline-based conceptual modelling. The paper is commendably concrete in shipping open-source repository links and in grounding its historical narrative in primary documents. However, the central claim currently rests on an interpretive historical causal story and on a self-reported implementation with no independent evaluation; both need substantial strengthening before the non-fundamentality conclusion is warranted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 8.2/8.3] The conclusion that the schema turn is 'not fundamental' (Section 10) depends on bCLEARer as a working counterexample, but the paper never shows that bCLEARer instantiates the 'integrated' category of the authors' own taxonomy (Section 3.2, based on extensional separation of data objects). Section 8.2 describes an automated pipeline and links to repositories; it does not state whether the conceptual schema and information base form a single extensional artifact or are stored as separate datasets mapped by transformations. Section 8.3 attributes benefits (automation, empirical design) to the inclusive style, but those benefits can accrue to ordinary ETL pipelines regardless of schema/base unification. Without an artifact-level demonstration, the existence proof for an inclusive schema-and-base model is unverified.
  2. [Section 5.3/5.4] The causal claim that the schema turn was 'making a virtue of technical necessity' (Section 5.3) is asserted rather than demonstrated. No contemporaneous source is cited in which the originators justify the schema/base separation by scalability constraints or greenfield project conditions; the ANSI-SPARC/ISO text quoted in Section 5.4 gives 'practical arguments' for the distinction, which the paper interprets as technological, but the quote is generic. Since the 'not fundamental' thesis requires that the separation was caused by removable environmental constraints rather than by a conceptual type/instance necessity, the historical causality needs direct evidence or a counterfactual analysis.
  3. [Section 3.2] The taxonomy of 'separated/aggregated/integrated' is defined by a loose notion of extensional separation, with 'integrated' explained by analogy to Aristotelian mixis. There is no operational criterion for deciding when a system is 'truly mixed' as opposed to storing schema and data in separate but related structures. This makes the classification of both historical styles and bCLEARer unfalsifiable. A sharper, testable criterion is needed before the inclusive style can be presented as a distinct architectural possibility rather than a relabeled ETL design.
  4. [Section 7] The package-application-migration example shows that the physical base data persists through schema replacement (the germline analogy), but persistence of data does not imply that schema and base are conceptually unified in an inclusive model. The proposed two-stage mapping through a common conceptual model can be implemented with a separated schema and base; the paper does not identify a step that requires the inclusive style or show that it is empirically better. The example therefore supports at most the weak claim that base-first thinking is useful in migration, not the strong claim that a schema-and-base modularity style is viable.
  5. [Section 10 vs. Abstract/Section 1] The summary states 'we then showed that the turn is not fundamental,' whereas the abstract and introduction frame the conclusion as a possibility ('it is possible that ... could be merely a temporary evolutionary detour'). The paper's evidence, even if accepted, establishes at most that an alternative is conceivable. The wording should be aligned with the evidential strength; as written the concluding claim overstates the support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 10] Typo: 'molarity landscape' should be 'modularity landscape.'
  2. [Section 7.1] Duplicate phrase: 'persist persist.'
  3. [Section 3.2] The terms 'aggregated' and 'aggregate' are used inconsistently; please unify the terminology.
  4. [Section 8.2] The GitHub links are valuable, but the paper should state which exact files or modules demonstrate the purported integrated style; a pipeline architecture diagram would help the reader verify the claim.
  5. [References] The historical argument would be strengthened by engaging independent scholarship on the history of databases; as it stands, many references are self-citations or the authors' own interpretive readings of primary sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; historical evidence is primary-source based and the bCLEARer counterexample is code-backed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the schema turn is historically contingent rather than fundamental—rests on two independent supports: (1) a historical reconstruction of the emergence of schema-centric practice from primary sources (Codd [35], CODASYL [40,41], Mealy [42], Chen [43], ANSI-SPARC [44], ISO/TR 9007 [1]) and (2) a working counterexample, bCLEARer, presented as an implementation of an inclusive schema-and-base style. Neither support reduces to the conclusion by construction. The hylomorphic modularity framework is developed explicitly in Sections 3.2 and 6 from general notions (Aristotle, Shaw and Garlan, Dijkstra, Parnas) and is used as an analytical lens, not as a fitted input. bCLEARer is the authors' own system, but the paper points to open-source repositories (Section 8.2) and describes decades of deployment, making the existence claim externally checkable rather than definitionally forced. The remaining weakness—whether bCLEARer truly avoids extensional schema/base separation under the paper's own taxonomy—is an empirical verification and precision issue, not a circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no known result is merely relabeled. The self-citations (e.g., [4], [55], [56]) are load-bearing for the bCLEARer example, but because the implementation is code-backed and the historical thesis is independently grounded in primary sources, they do not make the argument circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of domain assumptions about how to read the history of conceptual modelling and what causes architectural shifts. There are no fitted parameters because this is a qualitative, conceptual argument. The invented entities are the 'schema turn' and the modularity taxonomy, both interpretive devices without independent falsifiable handles.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The selected historical papers (Codd, CODASYL, Mealy, Chen, ANSI-SPARC) are representative of the evolution of conceptual modelling.
    The historical narrative in Sections 5.2-5.4 is built entirely on these sources; if they are unrepresentative, the diagnosis of the schema turn weakens.
  • ad hoc to paper The schema/base separation was caused by environmental constraints (greenfield projects, technology limits) rather than by a conceptual necessity of the type/instance distinction.
    This causal claim is asserted in Sections 5.3 and 7 with little direct evidence; it is load-bearing for the 'not fundamental' conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Evolutionary concepts such as niche construction and germline/soma apply metaphorically to software engineering practice.
    The paper uses these analogies (Sections 4.1-4.3, 7.1) to frame the turn as an adaptation; the analogy drives the argument that the turn could be a temporary detour.
  • domain assumption Modularity is a generally valid lens for describing the structure of conceptual models.
    Section 3 adopts modularity from Shaw and Garlan and Wimsatt; the whole framework depends on this lens.
invented entities (2)
  • The 'schema turn'
    purpose: Names and diagnoses the historical bias toward schemas
    Introduced in this paper as a historical category; no falsifiable external handle.
  • Modularity architectural style taxonomy (separated/aggregated/integrated)
    purpose: Analytical framework to compare conceptual modelling architectures
    An interpretive framework constructed by the authors, not empirically validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling the schema turn: Restoring the information base to conceptual modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TU4JSQLA

@misc{pith2026250901617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling the schema turn: Restoring the information base to conceptual modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TU4JSQLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01617}
}
read the original abstract

If one looks at contemporary mainstream development practices for conceptual modelling in computer science, these so clearly focus on a conceptual schema completely separated from its information base that the conceptual schema is often just called the conceptual model. These schema-centric practices are crystallized in almost every database textbook. We call this strong, almost universal, bias towards conceptual schemas the schema turn. The focus of this paper is on disentangling this turn within (computer science) conceptual modeling. It aims to shed some light on how it emerged and so show that it is not fundamental. To show that modern technology enables the adoption of an inclusive schema-and-base conceptual modelling approach, which in turn enables more automated, and empirically motivated practices. And to show, more generally, the space of possible conceptual modelling practices is wider than currently assumed. It also uses the example of bCLEARer to show that the implementations in this wider space will probably need to rely on new pipeline-based conceptual modelling techniques. So, it is possible that the schema turn's complete exclusion of the information base could be merely a temporary evolutionary detour.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ISO: ISO/TR 9007:1987 - Information processing systems - Concepts and terminology for the conceptual schema and the information base, (1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures

    Thalheim, B.: Conceptual Model Notions – A Matter of Controversy: Conceptual Model- ling and its Lacunas. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures. 9-27 Pages (2018). https://doi.org/10.18417/EMISA.SI.HCM.1

    work page doi:10.18417/emisa.si.hcm.1 2018

  3. [3]

    McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2020)

    Silberschatz, A., Korth, H.F., Sudarshan, S.: Database system concepts. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    In: STIDS 2024, Twelfth International Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security

    Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., de Cesare, S., Beverley, J.: Broadening Ontologization Design: Embracing Data Pipeline Strategies. In: STIDS 2024, Twelfth International Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. , Woodbridge VA (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Wiley (2003)

    Rushton, K.R.: Groundwater Hydrology: Conceptual and Computational Models. Wiley (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/0470871660

    work page doi:10.1002/0470871660 2003

  6. [6]

    John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England (2005)

    Tyrer, P., Steinberg, D.: Models for mental disorder: conceptual models in psychiatry. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Kant, I.: Critique of Pure Reason. J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. (1964)

    work page 1964

  8. [8]

    , Berlin (1928)

    Carnap, R.: Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. , Berlin (1928)

    work page 1928

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    MIT Press (1960)

    Quine, W.V .O.: Word & Object. MIT Press (1960)

    1960

  2. [10]

    University of Chicago Press, (1970)

    Kuhn, T.S.: The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association

    Davidson, D.: On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. 47, 5 (1973). https://doi.org/10.2307/3129898

    1973 doi

  4. [12]

    Int J Management Reviews

    Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A.: The Concept of Modularity in Management Studies: A Lit- erature Review. Int J Management Reviews. 12, 259–283 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    In: Managing in the modular age: Ar- chitectures, networks and organizations

    Schilling, M.A.: Modularity in multiple disciplines. In: Managing in the modular age: Ar- chitectures, networks and organizations. pp. 203–214. Blackwell Publishers (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    In: A Framework for Composition: A Step Towards a Foundation for Assem- bly

    Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., Grenon, P.: Appendix B – Some literature on modularity and components. In: A Framework for Composition: A Step Towards a Foundation for Assem- bly. CDBB (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society

    Simon, H.A.: The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 106, 467–482 (1962)

    1962

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

    Clune, J., Mouret, J.-B., Lipson, H.: The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 280, 20122863 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2005)

    Werner, C., Rasskin-Gutman, D., Simon, H.: Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs (1996)

    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    Yourdon Pr, New York, NY (1978)

    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured design: fundamentals of a discipline of com- puter program and systems design. Yourdon Pr, New York, NY (1978)

    1978

  12. [20]

    Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Aristotle: Aristotle Metaphysics: Books Z and H. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    1994

  13. [21]

    Dijkstra, E.W.: On the role of scientific thought. (1974)

    1974

  14. [22]

    Communi- cations of the ACM

    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communi- cations of the ACM. 15, 1053–1058 (1972)

    1972

  15. [23]

    Wiley- Blackwell (1992)

    Skidmore, S., Farmer, R., Mills, G.: SSADM Version 4: Models and Methods. Wiley- Blackwell (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (1993)

    NIST: Integration definition for information modeling (IDEF1X). National Institute of Standards and Technology (1993). Disentangling the schema turn 21

    1993

  17. [25]

    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (2007)

    Wimsatt, W.C.: Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Oxford Univ

    Maynard Smith, J., Szathmáry, E.: The origins of life: from the birth of life to the origin of language. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Szathmáry, E., Maynard Smith, J.M.: The major evolutionary transitions. Nature. (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    OUP (2010)

    Maynard Smith, J., Szathmáry, E.: The major transitions in evolution. OUP (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    University of Chicago press (1985)

    Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J.: Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago press (1985)

    1985

  22. [30]

    Journal of Theoretical Biology

    Jablonka, E., Lamb, M.J.: The Evolution of Information in the Major Transitions. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 239, 236–246 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.038

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2005)

    Jablonka, E., Lamb, M.J.: Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Methuen, London and New York (1982)

    Ong, W.J.: Orality and Literacy - The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen, London and New York (1982)

    1982

  25. [33]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York (1994)

    Olson, D.R.: The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York (1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    Princeton University Press (2003)

    Odling-Smee, F.J., Laland, K.N., Feldman, M.W.: Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Communications of the ACM

    Codd, E.F.: A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM. 13, 377–387 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1145/362384.362685

    1970

  28. [36]

    The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling

    Delcambre, L., Kaschek, R.H., Mayr, H.C.: 08181 Abstracts Collection – The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    eds: The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling: From a Historical Perspective Towards the Future of Conceptual Modeling

    Delcambre, L.M.L., Kaschek, R. eds: The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling: From a Historical Perspective Towards the Future of Conceptual Modeling. Springer (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Data & Knowledge Engineering

    Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Prat, N., Storey, V .C.: Unraveling the foundations and the evolution of conceptual modeling—Intellectual structure, current themes, and trajectories. Data & Knowledge Engineering. (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    In: Trujillo, J.C., Davis, K.C., Du, X., Li, Z., Ling, T.W., Li, G., and Lee, M.L

    Delcambre, L.M.L., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O., Storey, V .C.: A Reference Framework for Conceptual Modeling. In: Trujillo, J.C., Davis, K.C., Du, X., Li, Z., Ling, T.W., Li, G., and Lee, M.L. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    ACM (1971)

    Metaxides, A., Helgeson, W., Seth, R., Bryson, G., Coane, M., Dodd, G., Earnest, C., Engles, R., Harper, L., Hartley, P.: Data base task group report to the CODASYL program- ming language committee, April 1971. ACM (1971)

    1971

  33. [41]

    National Bureau of Standards: CODASYL data description language: National Bureau of Standards (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    In: Proceeding of AFIPS 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference

    Mealy, G.H.: Another Look at Data. In: Proceeding of AFIPS 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference. pp. 525–534. ACM, Anaheim, California (1967)

    1967

  35. [43]

    ACM Transac- tions on Database Systems (TODS)

    Chen, P.P.S.: The entity-relationship model - toward a unified view of data. ACM Transac- tions on Database Systems (TODS). 1, 9–36 (1976)

    1976

  36. [44]

    ANSI-X3-SPARC: Interim Report: ANSI-X3-SPARC Study Group on Data Base Manage- ment Systems. (1975)

    1975

  37. [45]

    Information Systems

    Tsichritzis, D., Klug, A.: The ANSI/X3/SPARC DBMS framework report of the study group on database management systems. Information Systems. 3, 173–191 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    oxford university press (1989)

    Nagel, T.: The view from nowhere. oxford university press (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Partridge, C., de Cesare, S., Mitchell, A., León, A., Gailly, F., Khan, M.: Ontology then Agentology: A Finer Grained Framework for Enterprise Modelling: In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development. (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    de, Gailly, F., Verdonck, M., Mitchell, A.: Thoroughly Modern Accounting: Shifting to a De Re Conceptual Pattern for Debits and Credits

    Partridge, C., Khan, M., Cesare, S. de, Gailly, F., Verdonck, M., Mitchell, A.: Thoroughly Modern Accounting: Shifting to a De Re Conceptual Pattern for Debits and Credits. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2018). (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Clarendon Press, Oxford (1962)

    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1962). 22 Partridge, Mitchell, de Cesare, Xiberta Soto

    1962

  42. [50]

    Cambridge U.P, Lon- don, (1969)

    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge U.P, Lon- don, (1969)

    1969

  43. [51]

    Clarendon Press, Oxford (1889)

    Weismann, A.: Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1889)

  44. [52]

    Current problems in sociobiology

    Dawkins, R.: Replicators and vehicles. Current problems in sociobiology. 45, 45–64 (1982)

    1982

  45. [53]

    Smith, L.: Shift-left testing. Dr. Dobb’s Journal. 26, 56-ff (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    In: International Conference on Software Language Engineering

    V oelter, M., Siegmund, J., Berger, T., Kolb, B.: Towards user-friendly projectional editors. In: International Conference on Software Language Engineering. pp. 41–61.(2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1996)

    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engi- neering Languages and Systems

    Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., Da Silva, M., Soto, O.X., West, M., Khan, M., De Cesare, S.: Implicit requirements for ontological multi-level types in the UNICLASS classification. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engi- neering Languag...

    2020

  49. [57]

    O’Reilly, Beijing Boston Farnham Sebastopol Tokyo (2022)

    Majors, C., Fong-Jones, L., Miranda, G.: Observability engineering: achieving production excellence. O’Reilly, Beijing Boston Farnham Sebastopol Tokyo (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Cognitive Sci- ence

    Kirsh, D., Maglio, P.: On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Sci- ence. 18, 513–549 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1

    1994 doi

  51. [59]

    In: The MDA Journal: Model Driven Architecture Straight From The Masters

    Booch, G., Brown, A., Iyengar, S., Rumbaugh, J., Selic, B.: An MDA Manifesto. In: The MDA Journal: Model Driven Architecture Straight From The Masters. (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    The European Journal for the Informatics Professional

    Selic, B.: MDA manifestations. The European Journal for the Informatics Professional. 44, 29–32 (2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Philosophia Mathematica

    Macbeth, D.: Seeing How It Goes: Paper-and-Pencil Reasoning in Mathematical Practice. Philosophia Mathematica. 20, 58–85 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    In: Handbook of Conceptual Modeling: Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges

    Embley, D.W., Liddle, S.W., Pastor, O.: Conceptual-model programming: a manifesto. In: Handbook of Conceptual Modeling: Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges. (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.