Fact-Orientation Meets Agent-Orientation

  • Terry Halpin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3508)


The pragmatic value of any information system, whether agent-oriented or not, depends critically on its fidelity in modelling the relevant aspects of the underlying business domain. Fact-oriented approaches to information modelling facilitate high fidelity models by lifting the specification of business facts and rules to a truly conceptual level where they can be easily validated with non-technical domain experts. Incorporating aspects of fact-orientation into agent-oriented approaches may well offer similar benefits. This paper reviews the principal concepts behind fact-orientation, and then discusses some lessons learned from early attempts to combine fact-orientation with two agent-oriented approaches.


Unify Modeling Language Domain Expert Fact Type Business Rule Object Management Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bakema, G.P., Zwart, J., van der Lek, H.: Fully Communication Oriented NIAM. In: Nijssen, G., Sharp, J. (eds.) NIAM-ISDM 1994 Conference Working papers, Albuquerque, NM USA, pp. L1–35 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloesch, A., Halpin, T.: Conceptual queries using ConQuer-II. In: Embley, D.W. (ed.) ER 1997. LNCS, vol. 1331, pp. 113–126. Springer, Heidelberg (1997), Online at Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz, J., Halpin, T.: Using DEMO and ORM in Concert: A Case Study. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 3, pp. 218–236. Idea Publishing Group, Hershey PA (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Embley, D., Kurtz, B., Woodfield, S.: Object-Oriented Systems Analysis: A Model-Driven Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Embley, D.: Object Database Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-Agent Systems. Addison-Wesley, Edinburgh Gate (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling (ORM/NIAM). In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 81–102. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halpin, T.: Information Analysis in UML and ORM: a Comparison. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 1, pp. 307–323. Idea Publishing Group, Hershey PA (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, T.: Metaschemas for ER, ORM and UML Data Models: A Comparison. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Journal of Database Management, vol. 13(2), pp. 20–29. Idea Publishing Group, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: Business Rule Verbalization. In: Doroshenko, A., Halpin, T., Liddle, S., Mayr, H. (eds.) Information Systems Technology and its Applications. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-48, pp. 39–52. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpin, T., Evans, K., Hallock, P., MacLean, W.: Database Modeling with Microsoft® Visio for Enterprise Architects. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T.: Constraints on Conceptual Join Paths. In: Krogstie, J., Halpin, T., Siau, K. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 258–277. Idea Publishing Group, Hershey (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T., Wagner, G.: Modeling reactive behavior in ORM. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 567–569. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofstede, A., ter Proper, H., van der Weide th, P.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Infrastructure Specification (2003), Online at
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Object Constraint Language (2003), Online at
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003), Online at
  19. 19.
    Ross, R., Lam, G.: RuleSpeak Sentence Templates: Developing Rules Statements Using Sentence Patterns. Business Rule Solutions (2001), Online at
  20. 20.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sowa, J.: Common Logic Controlled English (2004), Draft paper online at
  22. 22.
    Wagner, G.: The Agent-Object-Relationship Meta-Model: Towards a Unified View of State and Behavior. Information Systems 28(5), 475–504 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wintraecken, J.: The NIAM Information Analysis Method: Theory and Practice. Kluwer, Deventer (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Halpin
    • 1
  1. 1.Northface UniversitySalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations