Advertisement

Exploring Alternatives for Representing and Accessing Design Knowledge About Enterprise Integration

  • Karthikeyan Umapathy
  • Sandeep Purao
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4801)

Abstract

Enterprise integration refers to solutions that facilitate meaningful interactions among heterogeneous legacy applications. The scale, complexity and specificity of most enterprise integration efforts mean that design knowledge for enterprise integration has resisted codification. Important exceptions to this include: use of Business Process Models (BPM) to understand integration requirements; and Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIP), which present designers with abstract descriptions of recurring design tactics for integrating applications. The two, however, can be at odds. BPM encourages the control flow perspective; whereas EIP codifies an operational perspective. Mapping between the two to develop coherent solutions, therefore, tends to be problematic. To bridge the gap, we suggest an approach that builds on the theory of speech acts. We develop essential components of such an approach, including a re-representation of EIP as structures of speech acts, a characterization of tasks in BPM with action types, and a mapping between speech acts and action types. These components are accompanied by inference rules that produce a mapping between sets of tasks in a business process and structures of speech acts to allow reasoning on identification of appropriate EIPs for given set of tasks. We demonstrate usefulness of the proposed approach by application to industry cases.

Keywords

Enterprise integration design knowledge patterns business process modeling BPMN speech acts action types ontology reasoner 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hasselbring, W.: Information System Integration. Communications of the ACM 43, 32–38 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalal, N.P., Kamath, M., Kolarik, W.J., Sivaraman, E.: Toward an Integrated Framework for Modeling Enterprise Processes. Communications of the ACM 47, 83–87 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., Kulj, J., Love, P.E.D.: Extending the information system lifecycle through enterprise application integration: a case study experience. In: Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 37, pp. 228–235. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management: A Survey. Business Process Management (BPM): International Conference. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns. Addison-Wesley, London, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aalst, W.M.P., Hofstede, A.H.M.t., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, Cambridge, England (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weigand, H.: Two Decades of the Language-Action Perspective: Introduction. Communications of the ACM 49, 44–46 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhu, J., Tian, Z., Li, T., Sun, W., Ye, S., Ding, W., Wang, C.C., Wu, G., Weng, L., Huang, S., Liu, B., Chou, D.: Model-driven business process integration and management: A case study with the Bank SinoPac regional service platform. IBM Journal of Research and Development 48, 649–670 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Terminology, W.: Workflow Management Coalition Terminology & Glossary. The Workflow Management Coalition Specification (1999). http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1011_term_glossary_v3.pdf
  11. 11.
    BPMN: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) (2006), http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/OMG
  12. 12.
    Popkin, J.: Improving Regulatory Compliance With Business Process Modeling. Business Integration Journal (2005), http://bijonline.com/index.cfm?section=article&aid=212
  13. 13.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11, 26–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Purcell, T., Sodersten, K.: Design Education, Reflective Practice, and Design Research. Design Thinking Research Symposium Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalay, Y., Swerdloff, L., Majkowski, B.: Process and Knowledge in Design Computation. Journal of Architectural Education 43, 47–53 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goel, A.K.: Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert 12, 62–70 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Using design patterns to develop reusable object-oriented communication software. Communications of the ACM 38, 65–74 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, USA (1977)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, London, UK (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coad, P., North, D., Mayfield, M.: Object Models: Strategies, Patterns, and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Purao, S., Storey, V.C., Han, T.: Improving Analysis Pattern Reuse in Conceptual Design: Augmenting Automated Processes with Supervised Learning. Information Systems Research 14, 269–290 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentner, D.: Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 7, 155–170 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vokáč, M., Tichy, W., SjØberg, D.I.K., Arisholm, E., Aldrin, M.: A Controlled Experiment Comparing the Maintainability of Programs Designed with and without Design Patterns-A Replication in a Real Programming Environment. Empirical Software Engineering 9, 149–195 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Design Principles for Process Modelling in Enterprise Application Integration. Information Systems 26, 165–184 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lim, S.H., Juster, N., Pennington, A.: The Seven Major Aspects of Enterprise Modelling and Integration: A Position Paper. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 18, 71–75 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aakhus, M.: Felicity conditions and genre: Linking act and conversation in LAP style conversation analysis. International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bach, K., Harnish, R.M.: Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1979)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Christiansson, M.-T.: Interaction Analysis - An important part of Inter-organizational Business and IS development. International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP) (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldkuhl, G., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Actability: A Way to Understand Information Systems Pragmatics. International Workshop on Organisational Semiotics, Staffordshire University, Stafford, UK (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moore, S.A.: A Foundation for Flexible Automated Electronic Communication. Information Systems Research 12, 34–62 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lind, M., Goldkuhl, G.: Generic Layered Patterns for Business Modelling. International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP) (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    UML: Unified Modeling Language. Object Management Group (OMG) (2005), http://www.uml.org/
  33. 33.
    Gardner, T.: UML Modeling of Automated Business Processes with a mapping to BPEL4WS. European Workshop on Object Orientation and Web Services (EOOWS) (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove. CA (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, X., Chan, C.W., Hamilton, H.J.: Design of Knowledge-Based Systems with the Ontology-Domain-System Approach. International conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    OWL: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  38. 38.
    Bossam: Bossam Rule/OWL Reasoner. Minsu Jang (2006), http://mknows.etri.re.kr/bossam/FrontPage
  39. 39.
    Jang, M., Sohn, J.-C.: An Extended Rule Engine for OWL Inferencing. International Workshop on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, Hiroshima, Japan, pp. 128–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ITSO Speedy Rentals: Patterns: SOA Foundation - Business Process Management Scenario. IBM (2006), http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247234.pdf
  41. 41.
    Scenario, S.C.M.: Supply Chain Management Use Case Model. Web Services-Interoperability Organization (2003), http://www.ws-i.org/SampleApplications/SupplyChainManagement/2003-12/SCMUseCases1.0.pdf
  42. 42.
    Umapathy, K., Purao, S.: Designing Enterprise Solutions with Web Services and Integration Patterns. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC), pp. 111–118. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karthikeyan Umapathy
    • 1
  • Sandeep Purao
    • 1
  1. 1.College of IST, Penn State University, University Park, PAUSA

Personalised recommendations