Scientific domains representation and the relevance of metamodels: Dahlberg’s Systematifier

Main Article Content

Rosana Portugal Tavares de Moraes
Tatiana de Almeida
Maria Luiza de Almeida Campos
Hagar Espanha Gomes


This research aims at demonstrating Systematifier as a metamodel to guide the creation of conceptual models in scientific domains. It underlines the relevance of having consistent metamodels to provide feasible integration and interoperability of information systems. It is an exploratory and descriptive research in an argumentative language so to evince the benefits of adopting such a model as the Systematifier that, in addition to highlighting an ontological

commitment regarding domain representation, it makes the representation of multiintertransdisciplinary aspects also possible, something essential in today’s scientific domains. In order to represent and retrieve information, models are developed from concepts formed about a given reality that one seeks to represent. The metamodel consists of a set of tenets that express rules and general directives for the creation of models with such a degree of generalization that it becomes independent of the specificities of any knowledge domain. Adopting a metamodel in the field of informational studies the information professional pursues consistent conceptual structures so as to reach interoperability and integration of different conceptual models. The german scientist Ingetraut Dahlberg conceived the Systematifier and applied it as a base to structure the Information Coding Classification (ICC), a classificatory model that encompasses the whole scientific knowledge. Although she does not name Systematifier as a metamodel its theoretical principles have properties that it may be considered as such.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Moraes, R. P. T. de, Almeida, T. de, Campos, M. L. de A., & Gomes, H. E. (2023). Scientific domains representation and the relevance of metamodels:: Dahlberg’s Systematifier. Frontiers of Knowlegde Representation, 3(2), 201–224. Retrieved from
Research Articles