Towards Common Ground in SME: An Ontology of Method Descriptors

  • Adrian Iacovelli
  • Carine Souveyet
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 351)


The Method Engineering (ME) community is a prolific research domain where competing Situational Method Engineering (SME) approaches have been defined and used for composing, adapting or/and configuring a method into modular constructs according to their own modularization vision. This diversity shows the richness of the ME domain but implies some drawback like unnecessary confusion for non ME expert, lack of standard & interoperability, lack of implementation tool. However, researchers are agreed that a common ground in SME is a hot matter of discussion. Assuming that the differences between SME approaches are purposeful, we propose to reach a semantic common ground on what types of core concepts constitute a method descriptor. To achieve it, an ontology-based approach is applied in SME to design an ontology of method descriptors as a domain ontology. The semantics of the six most popular SME approaches modular constructs are defined according to this ontology in order to show its usage and its relevance. Finally, usage scenarios have been sketched to show that the ontology can be the start up phase for reducing the ME drawbacks mentioned above.


Method Engineering Method Descriptors Ontology Service Oriented Architecture 


  1. 1.
    Agerfalk, P., Brinkkemper, S., Gonzales-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Karlsson, F., Kelly, S., Ralyté, J.: Modularization Constructs in Method Engineering: Towards Common Ground? In: Panel of ME 2007. Springer, Geneva (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deneckère, R., Iacovelli, A., Kornyshova, E., Souveyet, C.: From Method Fragments to Method Services. In: EMMSAD Workshop of CAISE 2008, Montpellier, France (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nehan, Y.-R., Deneckère, R.: Component-based Situational Methods: A framework for understanding SME. In: Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, Switzerland. IFIP, vol. 244 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirbel, I.: Connecting Method Engineering Knowedge: a Community Based Approach. In: Proceedings of ME 2007, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niknafs, A., Asadi, M., Abolhassani, H.: Ontology-Based Method Engineering. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security. IJCSNS 7(8) (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C.: Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: engineering of information systems development method and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(7) (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wistrand, K., Karlsson, F.: Method components – rationale revealed. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 189–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Process meta-modelling and process construction: examples using the OPF. Ann. Software Engineering 14, 1–4 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guzélian, G., Cauvet, C.: SO2M: Towards a Service-Oriented Approach for Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the International Conference IKE 2007, USA, (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rolland, C., Plihon, V., Ralyté, J.: Specifying the reuse context of scenario method chunks. In: Pernici, B., Thanos, C. (eds.) CAiSE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1413, p. 191. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seligmann, P.S., Wijers, G.M., Sol, H.G.: Analysing the structure of IS methodologies, an alternative approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st Dutch Conference on Information Systems, Amersfoort, The Netherlands (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plihon, V., Rolland, C.: Modelling Ways–of–Working. In: Iivari, J., Rossi, M., Lyytinen, K. (eds.) CAiSE 1995. LNCS, vol. 932, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmsen, A.F.: SituationalMethod Engineering. Moret Ernst & Young (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rolland, C.: in French: L’ingénierie des méthodes: une visite guidée. In: e-TI (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson, F., Agerfalk, P.J.: Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information Software and Technology 46 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Supporting Situational Method Engineering with ISO/IEC 24744 and the Work Product Pool Approach. In: IFIP, Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences (2007) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson, M.: Software Requirements & Specifications – a Lexicon of Practice, Principles and Prejudices. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fillmore, C.J.: The case of case. In: Universals in linguistic theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. (1968)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dik, S.C.: The theory of functional grammar. Foris Publications, The Netherlands (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Open Process Framework,
  22. 22.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: Meta-Modelling Based Assembly Techniques for Situational Method Engineering. Information Systems 24(3) (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: Aproposal for context-specific method engineering. In: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, vol. 191-208. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 24744, Software Engineering – Metamodel for Development MethodologiesGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Service-Oriented Computing: Concepts, Characteristics and Directions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering WISE 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chabeb, Y., Tata, S.: Yet Another Semantic Annotation For WSDL. In: Proceeding of International Conference WWW/Internet IADIS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Iacovelli
    • 1
  • Carine Souveyet
    • 1
  1. 1.University Panthéon SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations