Advertisement

Knowledge Representation in Model Driven Approach in Terms of the Zachman Framework

  • Krzysztof Kluza
  • Piotr Wiśniewski
  • Antoni Ligęza
  • Anna Suchenia
  • Joanna Wyrobek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10842)

Abstract

Model driven approach uses distinct models for representing various kinds of complex knowledge. Use of appropriate models allows for taking advantage of formal checking, testing, and validating possibilities available for the models. Although the notations do not provide any design method or software process, this paper offers a step to integrated modeling using them. We present an overview of the existing OMG solutions for knowledge representation used in software engineering, focusing on UML, BPMN, DMN and CMMN models and the diagrams provided by these notations. We perform an analysis of these approaches in terms of Kruchten’s 4+1 view model architecture as well as the Zachman Framework.

References

  1. 1.
    Gustafson, D.A.: Theory and Problems of Software Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Bengaluru (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. International Computer Science, 7th edn. Pearson Education Limited, London (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjorner, D.: Software Engineering 3. Domains, Requirements, and Software Design. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33653-2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.: A spiral model for software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput. 21, 61–72 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strode, D.E.: A dependency taxonomy for agile software development projects. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(1), 23–46 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: OMG: Unified Modeling Language version 2.5.1 (OMG UML) (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunt, J.: Guide to the Unified Process featuring UML, Java and Design Patterns. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b97530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pilone, D., Pitman, N.: UML 2.0 in a Nutshell. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: business process model and notation (BPMN): version 2.0 specification. Technical report formal/2011-01-03, Object Management Group, January 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG: decision model and notation. version 1.0. Technical report formal/01 Sept 2015, Object Management Group (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group: OMG: MDA Guide version 1.0.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture. Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaševic, D., Djuric, D., Devedžic, V.: Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32182-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alhir, S.S.: Understanding the model driven architecture (MDA). Methods and Tools 11(3), 17–24 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klimek, R., Skrzynski, P., Turek, M.: On some problems with modelling of exceptions in UML. In: Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies, pp. 87–98. IOS Press (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nalepa, G.J., Kluza, K.: UML representation for rule-based application models with XTT2-based business rules. Int. J. Software Eng. Knowl. Eng. (IJSEKE) 22(4), 485–524 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kluza, K., Wiśniewski, P., Jobczyk, K., Ligęza, A., Mroczek, A.S.: Comparison of selected modeling notations for process, decision and system modeling. In: 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 1095–1098. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J., Ślażyński, M., Kutt, K., Kucharska, E., Kaczor, K., Łuszpaj, A.: Overview of selected business process semantization techniques. In: Pełech-Pilichowski, T., Mach-Król, M., Olszak, C.M. (eds.) Advances in Business ICT: New Ideas from Ongoing Research. SCI, vol. 658, pp. 45–64. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47208-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klimek, R.: Towards formal and deduction-based analysis of business models for SOA processes. In: In Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds.) Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2012), 6–8 Feb 2012, Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, vol. 2, pp. 325–330. SciTePress (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klimek, R.: A system for deduction-based formal verification of workflow-oriented software models. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 24(4), 941–956 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor, J., Fish, A., Vanthienen, J., Vincent, P.: Emerging standards in decision modeling - an introduction to decision model and notation. BPM and Workflow Handbook Series. In: iBPMS: Intelligent BPM Systems: Intelligent BPM Systems: Impact and Opportunity, pp. 133–146. Future Strategies, Inc. (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janssens, L., Bazhenova, E., De Smedt, J., Vanthienen, J., Denecker, M.: Consistent integration of decision (DMN) and process (BPMN) models. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE’16 Forum, at the 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2016), Vol. 1612, pp. 121–128. CEUR-WS. org (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biard, T., Le Mauff, A., Bigand, M., Bourey, J.-P.: Separation of decision modeling from business process modeling using new “decision model and notation” (DMN) for automating operational decision-making. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Bénaben, F., Picard, W. (eds.) PRO-VE 2015. IAICT, vol. 463, pp. 489–496. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24141-8_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMG: Case Model Management and Notation (CMMN): Version 1.1 specification. Technical report formal/16-12-01, Object Management Group, December 2016Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kruchten, P.B.: The 4+ 1 view model of architecture. IEEE softw. 12(6), 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wendler, R.: Development of the organizational agility maturity model. In: 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 1197–1206. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ambler, S., Nalbone, J., Vizdos, M.: Extending the RUP with the Zachman Framework. Pearson Education 131914510 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fatolahi, A., Shams, F.: An investigation into applying UML to the Zachman framework. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 133–143 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frankel, D.S., Harmon, P., Mukerji, J., Odell, J., Owen, M., Rivitt, P., Rosen, M., Soley, R.M.: The Zachman framework and the OMG’s model driven architecture. Bus. Process Trends 14(2003), 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mrdalj, S., Jovanovic, V.: Mapping the UML to the Zachman framework. In: AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, p. 315 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khoshnevis, S., Aliee, F.S., Jamshidi, P.: Model driven approach to service oriented enterprise architecture. In: Services Computing Conference 2009, APSCC 2009. IEEE Asia-Pacific, pp. 279–286. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Kluza
    • 1
  • Piotr Wiśniewski
    • 1
  • Antoni Ligęza
    • 1
  • Anna Suchenia
    • 2
  • Joanna Wyrobek
    • 3
  1. 1.AGH University of Science and TechnologyKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Cracow University of TechnologyKrakówPoland
  3. 3.Corporate Finance DepartmentCracow University of EconomicsKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations