Advertisement

Random Thoughts on Multi-level Conceptual Modelling

  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6520)

Abstract

Conceptual modelling has a lengthy history. In the context of software engineering, over the last three decades, conceptual modelling has moved from largely being used for data representation, especially in databases, to applications in metamodelling, ontologies, method engineering, standards and business process management. Here, I reflect, somewhat randomly, upon some of these issues and possible future application/research areas for conceptual modelling. Of prime importance must be the synergistic exploration of model quality, a topic poorly represented in the conceptual modelling literature.

Keywords

Conceptual modelling metamodelling ontologies standards methodology quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Reservoirs, p. 128. Macmillan, Basingstoke (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards, J.M., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A graphical notation for object-oriented analysis and design. J. Object-Oriented Programming 5(9), 53–74 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Towards a conceptual model of randomness. Ecological Modelling 85, 303–308 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Cooper, D.: Has classical music a fractal nature? - a re-analysis. Computers and the Humanities 27, 43–506 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brodie, M.L.: John Mylopoulos: sewing seeds of conceptual modelling. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roussopoulos, N., Karagiannis, D.: Conceptual modeling: past, present and the continuum of the future. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Vienna (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kühne, T.: Matters of (meta-) modelling. Software and Systems Modeling 5, 369–385 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ludewig, J.: Models in software engineering – an introduction. Software and Systems Modeling 2, 5–14 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: A semantics for abstraction. In: Lopez de Mantaras, R., Saitta, L. (eds.) Procs. ECAI 2004, pp. 343–352. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keet, C.M.: Enhancing comprehension of ontologies and conceptual models through abstractions. In: Basili, R., Pazienza, M.T. (eds.) AI*IA 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4733, pp. 813–821. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giunchiglia, F., Walsh, T.: A theory of abstraction. Artificial Intelligence 57(2-3), 323–390 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaschek, R.: Modelling Ontology Use for Information Systems. In: Althoff, K.-D., Dengel, A.R., Bergmann, R., Nick, M., Roth-Berghofer, T.R. (eds.) WM 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3782, pp. 609–622. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hesse, W.: More matters on (meta-)modelling: remarks on Thomas Kühne’s “matters”. Softw. Syst. Model. 5, 387–394 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kühne, T.: Clarifying matters of (meta-)modeling: an author’s reply. Softw. Syst. Model. 5, 395–401 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ogden, C.K., Richards, I.A.: The Meaning of Meaning. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York (1923)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaschek, R.: A little theory of abstraction. In: Rumpe, B., Hesse, W. (eds.) Proceedings of Modellierung 2004. LNI, vol. 45, pp. 75–92. GI, Bonn (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mani, I.: A theory of granularity and its application to problems of polysemy and underspecification of meaning. In: Cohn, A.G., Schubert, L.K., Shapiro, S.C. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (KR 1998), pp. 245–257. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J. Systems Software 80(11), 1778–1796 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machado, E.P., Traina Jr., C., Araujo, M.R.B.: Classification abstraction: An intrinsic element in database systems. In: Yakhno, T. (ed.) ADVIS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1909, pp. 57–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kühne, T.: Contrasting classification with generalisation. In: Kirchberg, M., Link, S. (eds.) Procs. Sixth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2009). CRPIT, vol. 96, pp. 71–78 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kühne, T.: What is a model? In: Bézivin, J., Heckel, R. (eds.) Procs. Dagstuhl Seminar 04101, Language Engineer-ing for Model-Driven Software Development (2004), http://drops.dagstuhl.de/portals/index.php/semnr=04101
  24. 24.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A representation-theoretical analysis of the OMG modelling suite. In: Fujita, H., Mejri, M. (eds.) New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, pp. 252–262. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of “semantics”? IEEE Computer 37(10), 64–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laarman, A., Kurtev, I.: Ontological Metamodeling with Explicit Instantiation. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 174–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Favre, J.-M.: Foundations of model (driven) (reverse) engineering: models. Episode I: Stories of The Fidus Papyrus and of The Solarus. In: Bézivin, J., Hockel, R. (eds.) Procs. Dagstuhl Seminar 04101 Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development (2005) ISSN 1862-4405 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seidewitz, E.: What models mean. IEEE Software 20, 26–31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muller, P.-A., Fondement, F., Baudry, B.: Modeling modeling. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whitmire, S.A.: Object Oriented Design Measurement, p. 452. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atkinson, C.: Metamodelling for distributed object environments. In: First International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC 1997), Brisbane, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Atkinson, C.: Supporting and Applying the UML Conceptual Framework. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 21–36. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jørgensen, K.A.: Modelling on multiple abstraction levels. In: Procs. 7th Workshop on Product Structuring – Product Platform Development, March 24-25. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.1.1, OMG document formal/07-02-03 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ANSI: Information Resource Dictionary System (IRDS). American National Standards Institute, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Unhelkar, B.: OPEN Modeling with UML, p. 245. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodelling foundation. IEEE Software 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Concepts for Comparing Modeling Tool Architectures. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 398–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: On the challenges of correctly using metamodels in method engineering. In: Fujita, H., Pisanelli, D. (eds.) New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, Proceedings of the Sixth SoMeT_ 2007, pp. 3–35. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering, p. 210. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software and Systems Modeling 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Odell, J.J.: Power types. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 7(2), 8–12 (1994)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    ISO/IEC: Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies, ISO/IEC 24744. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method engineering: theory and practice. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) 5th International Conference Information Systems Technology and its Applications, ISTA 2006, Klagenfurt, Austria, May 30-31. LNI, vol. P-84, pp. 13–23. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Int. Conf. on Formal Ontology in Information Systems - FOIS 1998, Trento, Italy (1998)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wyssusek, B., Klaus, H.: Ontological foundations of information systems analysis and design: extending the scope of the discussion. In: Green, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies, pp. 322–344. IGI Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies. IGI Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.): Ontologies in Software Engineering and Software Technology, p. 339. Springer, Berlin (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hesse, W.: Engineers discovering the “real world” - from model-driven to ontology-based software engineering. In: Kaschek, R., Kop, C., Steinberger, C., Fliedl, G. (eds.) UNISCON 2008. LNBIP, vol. 5, pp. 136–147. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hesse, W.: From conceptual models to ontologies – a software engineering approach, paper presented at Dagstuhl Seminar on Conceptual Modelling, April 27-30 (2008), preprint on conference website: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2008/1598
  51. 51.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Bridging metamodels and ontologies in software engineering (2010) (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kiko, K.: On the relationship of ontologies and models, in Meta-Modelling and Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Meta-Modelling, WoMM 2006. LNI, vol. P-96, pp. 47–60. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2006)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Devedzic, V.: Understanding ontological engineering. Comms. ACM 45(4), 136–144 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ruiz, F., Hilera, J.R.: Using ontologies in software engineering and technology. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 49–102. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M.: Comparison criteria for ontological multi-level modelling, paper presented at Dagstuhl Seminar on Conceptual Modelling, April 27-30 (2008) (preprint on conference website) Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    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. 239–273. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Falbo, R.A., Ruy, F.B., Moro, R.D.: Using ontologies to add semantics to a software engineering environment. In: Procs. SEKE 2005, Skokie, IL, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Unhelkar, B.: Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    ISO/IEC: Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 1.4.2. ISO/IEC 19501. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2005)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Barbier, F., Henderson-Sellers, B., Le Parc-Lacayrelle, A., Bruel, J.-M.: Formal-ization of the whole-part relationship in the Unified Modeling Language. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 29(5), 459–470 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Barbier, F., Aretxandieta, X.: State-based composition in UML 2. Int. J. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng. 18(7), 1–25 (2008)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 16–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Systematic stereotype usage. Software and System Modelling 2(3), 153–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fuentes-Fernandez, R., Gomez-Sanz, J.J., Pavon, J.: Integration in agent-oriented development. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Software Eng. 1(1), 2–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    McGregor, J.D., Korson, T.: Supporting dimensions of classification in object-oriented design. J. Obj.-Oriented Programming 5(9), 25–30 (1993)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Edwards, J.M.: BOOKTWO of Object-Oriented Knowledge: The Working Object, p. 594. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software Syst. Model. 1(1), 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Object-Oriented Metrics. In: Measures of Complexity, p. 234. Prentice Hall, NJ (1996)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fenton, N.: Software measurement: a necessary scientific basis. IEEE Trans. Soft-ware Eng. 20, 199–206 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: The TAME project: towards improvement-orientated software environments. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 14(6), 758–773 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nugroho, A., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Evaluating the impact of UML modeling on software quality: An industrial case study. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 181–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Stevens, W.P., Myers, G.J., Constantine, L.L.: Structured design. IBM Syst. J. 13(2), 115–139 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Henry, S., Kafura, D.: Software structure metrics based on information flow. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 7(5), 510–518 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chidamber, S., Kemerer, C.: A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yap, L.-M., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A semantic model for inheritance in object-oriented systems. In: Procs. ASWEC 1993, pp. 28–35. IREE, Sydney (1993)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Martin, M., de los, A., Olsina, L.: Towards an ontology for software metrics and indicators as the foundation for a cataloguing web system. In: Procs. First Conf. Latin American Web Congress, pp. 103–113. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Garcia, F., Bertoa, M.F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Genero, M.: Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement. Inf. Software Technol. 48, 631–644 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Genero, M., Piattini, M., Calero, C. (eds.): Metrics for Software Conceptual Models. Imperial College Press, London (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lanza, M., Marinescu, R.: Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice, p. 205. Springer, Berlin (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Aggarwal, K.K., Singh, Y., Kaur, A., Malhotra, R.: Software design metrics for object-oriented software. J. Obj. Technol. 6(1), 121–138 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Aggarwal, K.K., Singh, Y., Kaur, A., Malhotra, R.: Investigating effect of design metrics on fault proneness in object-oriented systems. J. Obj. Technol. 6(10), 127–141 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Franch, X.: A Method for the Definition of Metrics over i* Models. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Unhelkar, B., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Applying syntax, semantics and aesthetic checks to verifying and validating the quality of UML models. In: Procs. IRMA 2005. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Du Bois, B., Lange, C.F.J., Demeyer, S., Chaudron, M.R.V.: A Qualitative Investigation of UML Modeling Conventions. In: Auletta, V. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering, p. 210. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bertoa, M.F., Vallecillo, A.: Quality attributes for software metamodels. In: Procs. QAOOSE 2010, Malaga, Spain, July 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    ISO/IEC: Software Process Assessment - Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary. ISO/IEC 15504-1: International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2004)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Methodology enactment using a work product pool approach. J. Systems and Software 81(8), 1288–1305 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zuse, H.: Software Complexity: Measures and Methods, p. 605. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Weyuker, E.: Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 14(9), 1357–1365 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Fenton, N.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach, p. 337. Chapman and Hall, London (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pavon, J., Gomez-Sanz, J., Fuentes, R.: The INGENIAS methodology and tools. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 236–276. IDEA Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Beydoun, G., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G.: Developing and Evaluating a Generic Metamodel for MAS Work Products. In: Garcia, A., Choren, R., Lucena, C., Giorgini, P., Holvoet, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) SELMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3914, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Beydoun, G., Low, G., Henderson-Sellers, B., Mouratidis, H., Gomez-Sanz, J., Pavon, J., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: FAML: a generic metamodel for MAS development. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6), 841–863 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Azaiez, S., Huget, M.-P., Oquendo, F.: An approach for multi-agent metamodelling. Multiagent and Grid Systems 2(4), 435–454 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Odell, J.J., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Fleischer, M.: Modeling agent organizations using roles. Software and Systems Modeling 2, 76–81 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, J.A. (eds.) Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, pp. 257–269. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems devel-opment methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method engineering for OO system development. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 73–78 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyte, J.: Approaches to situational method engineering. Journal of Universal Computer Science 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.): Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, September 12-14. IFIP Series, vol. 244, p. 380. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Seidita, V., Ralyté, J., Henderson-Sellers, B., Cossentino, M., Arni-Bloch, N.: A comparison of deontic matrices, maps and activity diagrams for the construction of situational methods. In: Eder, J., Tomassen, S.L., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 Forum Proceedings, pp. 85–88 (2007)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    ISO/IEC: CDIF Framework. ISO/IEC 15474, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    OMG: BPMN Fundamentals, OMG document bei/04-11-05.pdf (2005)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Bock, C.: Introduction to the Business Process Definition Metamodel, OMG doc. BPDM_08-06-32.pdf (2008)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., Sadiq, S.: Major issues in business proc-ess management: an expert perspective, BP Trends, pp. 1–8 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: Current issues and future challenges. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Graham, I.: Requirements Modelling and Specification for Service Oriented Architecture, p. 301. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Deneckère, R., Iacovelli, A., Kornyshova, E., Souveyet, C.: From method frag-ments to method services. In: Halpin, T., Proper, E., Krogstie, J., Franch, X., Hunt, E., Coletta, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 208) held in conjunction with the CAiSE 2008 Conference, Montpellier, France, June 16-17. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 337, pp. 80–96 (2008), http://www.ceur-ws.org
  112. 112.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Meta-model tailoring for situation-aware business process modelling. In: Procs MoDISE-EUS 2008, CEUR Proceedings, vol. 341 (2008), http://ceur-ws.org
  113. 113.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Qureshi, M.A., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Towards an interop-erable metamodel suite: complexity assessment. In: Parsons, J., et al. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gašević, D., Kaviani, N., Hatala, M.: On metamodeling in megamodels. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 91–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A method to build information systems engineering process metamodels. J. Systems Software 82(10), 1730–1742Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Unhelkar, B., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling spaces and the UML, Innova-tions Through Information Technology. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.) Procs. IRMA 2004, pp. 892–895. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2004)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Du Bois, B., Lange, C.F.J., Demeyer, S., Chaudron, M.R.V.: A Qualitative Investigation of UML Modeling Conventions. In: Auletta, V. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A.: On conceptualization of quality, paper presented at Dagstuhl Seminar on Conceptual Modelling, April 27-30 (2008) (preprint on conference website)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Dupuy-Chessa, S.: Quality in ubiquitous information system design. In: Procs. Third Int. Conf. on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2009), pp. 343–352. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Thalheim, B.: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Modelling. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 45–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Jackson, M.: Some Notes on Models and Modelling. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 68–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Favre, J.-M.: Towards a basic theory to model model-driven engineering. In: Procs. WISME 2004, a workshop at UML 2004, Lisbon, Portugal (2004), http://megaplanet.org/jean-marie-favre/papers/TowardsABasicTheoryToModelModelDrivenEngineering.pdf (accessed May 13, 2010)
  125. 125.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Siau, K., Tan, X.: Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data & Knowledge Eng. 55, 343–365 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Software Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations