Advertisement

Model-Based Software Engineering and Process-Aware Information Systems

  • Ekkart Kindler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5460)

Abstract

Today, there are many graphical formalisms for modelling software—among others the Unified Modeling Language (UML). And there are different technologies that automatically generate code from such models. We call these as well as any approach that takes models more seriously than just a sketch or an illustration Model-based Software Engineering (MBSE). Most of today’s code generation approaches, however, focus on standard behaviour; application specific behaviour often still needs to be programmed manually. The ultimate goal of MBSE, however, is to generate all code automatically.

In the field of Process-aware Information System (PAIS) and workflow management, models have been in the focus right from the beginning. What is more, the models were used to define and enact application specific behaviour or business logic by providing process models. This way, they are one of the successful precursors of Model-based Software Engineering.

In this paper, we will give an overview of the concepts and technologies in MBSE, and its main ideas, principles, and concepts. We will point out some differences to PAIS, but also some common ground, and we show how both fields could benefit from each other. This way, we want to start bridging the gap between MBSE and PAIS .

Keywords

Business Process Modelling Model-based Software Engineering (MBSE) Model-driven Architecture (MDA) Process-aware Information Systems (PAIS) Process models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews, T., Cubera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarama, S.: Business process execution language for web services specification. Technical Report Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axenath, B., Kindler, E., Rubin, V.: AMFIBIA: A meta-model for the integration of business process modelling aspects. International Journal on Business Process Integration and Management 2(2), 120–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billington, J., Christensen, S., van Hee, K., Kindler, E., Kummer, O., Petrucci, L., Post, R., Stehno, C., Weber, M.: The Petri Net Markup Language: Concepts, technology, and tools. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Best, E. (eds.) ICATPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2679, pp. 483–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böhm, M., Schulze, W.: Grundlagen von Workflow-Managementsystemen. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Informatik 8(2), 50–65 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.: Domain-specific modelling and model driven architecture. MDA Journal, pp. 2–10 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software through Process Technology. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story diagrams: A new graph rewrite language based on the Unified Modeling Language and Java. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M.: Language workbenches and model driven architecture (June 2006), http://martinfowler.com/articles/mdaLanguageWorkbench.html
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenyer, J., Kindler, E.: Reconciling TGGs with QVT. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Pnueli, A.: On the development of reactive systems. In: Apt, K.R. (ed.) Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems. Series F: Computer and System Science, vol. 13, pp. 477–498. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillah, L., Kordon, F., Petrucci, L., Trèves, N.: Model engineering on Petri nets for ISO/IEC 15909-2: API framework for Petri net types metamodels. Petri Net Newsletter 69, 22–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The workflow reference model. Technical Report TC00-1003, The Workflow Management Coalition, WfMC (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/JTC1/SC7/WG19. Software and Systems Engineering – High-level Petri Nets – Part 2: Transfer Format. FCD 15909-2, v. 1.2.0, ISO/IEC (June 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jablonski, S.: Workflow-Management-Systeme: Modellierung und Architektur. Thomson Publishers (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jüngel, M., Kindler, E., Weber, M.: The Petri Net Markup Language. Petri Net Newsletter 59, 24–29 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kindler, E.: The Petri Net Markup Language and ISO/IEC 15909-2: Concepts, status, and future directions. In: Schnieder, E. (ed.) Entwurf komplexer Automatisierungssysteme, 9. Fachtagung, pp. 35–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kindler, E., Schmelter, D.: Aspect-oriented modelling from a different angle: Modelling domains with aspects. In: 12th International Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling, pp. 7–12 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kindler, E., Wagner, R.: Triple Graph Grammars: Concepts, extensions, implementations, and application scenarios. Technical Report tr-ri-07-284, Department of Computer Science, University of Paderborn (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNeile, A.T., Simons, N.: Protocol modelling: A modelling approach that supports reusable behavioural abstractions. Software and Systems Modeling 5(1), 91–107 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mellor, S.J., Balcer, M.J.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model-driven Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    XML metadata interchange (XMI) specification, version 2.0. Technical Report formal/03-05-02, The Object Management Group, Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meta object facility (MOF) specification, version 1.4.1. Technical Report formal/05-05-05, The Object Management Group, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MOF QVT, final adopted specification. Technical Report ptc/05-11-01, The Object Management Group, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, V2.1.2. Object Management Group, 140 Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494, USA (2005), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Superstructure/PDF
  30. 30.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure Version 2.0. Object Management Group, 140 Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494, USA (2005), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04
  31. 31.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration and choreography. IEEE Computer 36(10), 46–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Unland, L., George, T.: MDA richtig einsetzen: Klassische und innovative Rezepte. OBJEKTspektrum 6, 41–44 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. Cooperative Information Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Workflow Management Coalition: Terminology & glossary. Technical Report WFMC-TC-1011, The Workflow Management Coalition, WfMC (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekkart Kindler
    • 1
  1. 1.DTU InformaticsTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations