Advertisement

Validating the DEMO Specification Language

  • M. A. T. MulderEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 334)

Abstract

The Design and Engineering Method for Organisations (DEMO) is the principal methodology in Enterprise Engineering (EE). The Design and Engineering Method for Organisations Specification Language (DEMOSL) states the rules, legends, and metamodel of DEMO. Therefore, any DEMO model must comply with this specification. Moreover, to enable automation of the DEMO model validation, we need a metamodel that can accurately represent DEMO models. With DEMOSL as the appointed specification language for DEMO, with automation as target, we need to validate the fitness of DEMOSL for modelling DEMO.

Our findings provide insight into the amount of changes and the complexity and direction of change to complete the metamodel and make it usable for automation. We found that some incomplete, inconsistent or inadequate specifications in DEMOSL hinder its use as a prescriptive metamodel. We describe these limitations in DEMOSL as a whole and in the separate Construction Model (CM), Process Model (PM), Action Model (AM) and Fact Model (FM).

Finally, we conclude that the metamodel needs improvement to be able to model all allowed DEMO models.

References

  1. 1.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33149-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P.: The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int. J. Org. Des. Eng. 3, 86–114 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    APC Perinforma: The essence of organisation. Sapio Enterprise Engineering (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Mulder, M.A.T.: Demo specification language 3.7 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Aken, J., Andriessen, D.: Handboek ontwerpgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek. (Handbook for Design Science Research). Boom Lemma (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aßmann, U., Zschaler, S., Wagner, G.: Ontologies, meta-models, and the model-driven paradigm. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 249–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34518-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gouveia, D., Aveiro, D.: Things, references, connectors, types, variables, relations and attributes – a contribution to the FI and MU theories. In: Aveiro, D., Pergl, R., Gouveia, D. (eds.) EEWC 2016. LNBIP, vol. 252, pp. 181–195. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39567-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Kervel, S.J.H.: Ontology driven enterprise information systems engineering. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft (2012). ID: urn:NBN:nl:ui:24-uuid:8c42378a-8769-4a48-a7fb-f5457ede0759; ths:Dietz, J.L.G. - org:TU Delft - dgg:TUGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo specification language 3.6 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feynman, R.: EBNF: a notation to describe syntax (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LeusdenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations