Advertisement

Domain Endurants

An Analysis and Description Process Model
  • Dines Bjørner
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8373)

Abstract

We present a summary, Sect. 2, of a structure of domain analysis and description concepts: techniques and tools. And we link, in Sect. 3, these concepts, embodied in domain analysis prompts and domain description prompts, in a model of how a diligent domain analyser cum describer would use them. We claim that both sections, Sects. 2–3, contribute to a methodology of software engineering.

Keywords

Domain Analysis Software Product Line Proof Obligation Pipeline System Domain Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Audi, R.: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, The Pitt Building (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachman, C.: Data structure diagrams. Data Base, Journal of ACM SIGBDP 1(2) (1969)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benjamins, V., Fensel, D.: The Ontological Engineering Initiative (KA)2. Internet publication + Formal Ontology in Information Systems, University of Amsterdam, SWI, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands and University of Karlsruhe, AIFB, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany (1998), http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/broker/KA2.htm
  4. 4.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Theory: Practice and Theories, Discussion of Possible Research Topics. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4711, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjørner, D.: From Domains to Requirements. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Montanari Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 278–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Engineering. In: Boca, P., Bowen, J. (eds.) Formal Methods: State of the Art and New Directions, pp. 1–42. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Science & Engineering – From Computer Science to The Sciences of Informatics Part II of II: The Science Part. Kibernetika i Sistemny Analiz (2), 100–120 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjørner, D.: Domains: Their Simulation, Monitoring and Control – A Divertimento of Ideas and Suggestions. In: Calude, C.S., Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Maurer Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 6570, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Analysis & Description: Modelling Facets (Writing to begin Summer 2013) (paper 39, slides 40). Research Report 2013-7, DTU Compute and Fredsvej 11, DK-2840 Holte, Denmark. A first draft of this document might be written late summer of 2013 (Summer/Fall 2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Analysis & Description: Perdurants (Writing to begin Summer 2013) (paper 41, slides 42). Research Report 2013-7, DTU Compute and Fredsvej 11, DK-2840 Holte, Denmark. A first draft of this document might be written late summer of 2013 (Summer/Fall 2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Analysis: A Model of Prompts (Writing of crucial final section yet to begin) (paper 43, slides 44). Research Report 2013-6, DTU Compute and Fredsvej 11, DK-2840 Holte, Denmark. A first draft of this document will be written over the summer of 2013) (Summer 2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Analysis (paper 45, slides 46). Research Report 2013-1, DTU Compute and Fredsvej 11, DK-2840 Holte, Denmark (April 2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Science and Engineering as a Foundation for Computation for Humanity. In: Zander, J., Mosterman, P.J. (eds.) Computational Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Dynamic Systems, ch. 7, pp. 159–177. CRC (Francis & Taylor) (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bjørner, D.: On Deriving Requirements from Domain Specifications (Writing to begin Summer 2013) (paper 47, slides 48). Research Report 2013-8, DTU Compute and Fredsvej 11, DK-2840 Holte, Denmark. A first draft of this document might be written late summer of 2013 (Summer/Fall 2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bjørner, D., Nilsson, J.F.: Algorithmic & Knowledge Based Methods — Do they “Unify” ? In: International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems: FGCS 1992, June 1-5, pp. 191–198. ICOT (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, P.P.: The Entity-Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge, 2nd printing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 02142 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feigenbaum, E.A., McCorduck, P.: The fifth generation, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1983)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fowler, M.: Domain Specific Languages. Signature Series. Addison-Wesley (October 2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fox, C.: The Ontology of Language: Properties, Individuals and Discourse. CSLI Publications, Stanford University (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis — Mathematical Foundations, 300 pages. Springer (January 1999) Amazon price: US $ 44.95. ISBN: 3540627715Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    George, C.W., Haff, P., Havelund, K., Haxthausen, A.E., Milne, R., Nielsen, C.B., Prehn, S., Wagner, K.R.: The RAISE Specification Language. The BCS Practitioner Series. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hampstead (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    George, C.W., Haxthausen, A.E., Hughes, S., Milne, R., Prehn, S., Pedersen, J.S.: The RAISE Development Method. The BCS Practitioner Series. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hampstead (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Introducing institutions. In: Clarke, E., Kozen, D. (eds.) Logics of Programs. LNCS, vol. 164, pp. 221–256. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goguen, J.A., Winkler, T., Meseguer, J., Futatsugi, K., Jouannaud, J.-P.: Introducing OBJ. In: J. A. Goguen and G. Malcolm, editors, Software Engineering with OBJ: Algebraic Specification in Action. Kluwer Press, 2000. Also Technical Report SRI-CSL-88-9, SRI International (August 1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gunter, C.A., Gunter, E.L., Jackson, M.A., Zave, P.: A Reference Model for Requirements and Specifications. IEEE Software 17(3), 37–43 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haywood, D.: Domain-Driven Design Using Naked Objects. The Pragmatic Bookshelf (an imprint of ‘The Pragmatic Programmers, LLC.’) (2009), http://pragprog.com/
  30. 30.
    Honderich, T.: The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jackson, M.: Program Verification and System Dependability. In: Boca, P., Bowen, J. (eds.) Formal Methods: State of the Art and New Directions, pp. 43–78. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jackson, M.A.: Problem Frames — Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. ACM Press, Pearson Education. Addison-Wesley, England (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Foda: Feature-oriented domain analysis. Feasibility Study CMU/SEI-90-TR-021. Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie Mellon University (November 1990), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/90tr021.cfm
  35. 35.
    Luschei, E.: The Logical Systems of Leśniewksi. North Holland, Amsterdam (1962)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Medvidovic, N., Colbert, E.: Domain-Specific Software Architectures (DSSA). Power Point Presentation, found on The Internet. Absolute Software Corp., Inc.: Abs[S/W] (March 5, 2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mellor, D.H., Oliver, A. (eds.): Properties. Oxford Readings in Philosophy, 320 pages. Oxford Univ. Press (May 1997) ISBN: 0198751761Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys 37(4), 316–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mettala, E., Graham, M.H.: The Domain Specific Software Architecture Program. Project Report CMU/SEI-92-SR-009, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (June 1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prieto-Díaz, R.: Domain Analysis for Reusability. In: COMPSAC 1987. ACM Press (1987)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prieto-Díaz, R.: Domain analysis: an introduction. Software Engineering Notes 15(2), 47–54 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prieto-Díaz, R., Arrango, G.: Domain Analysis and Software Systems Modelling. IEEE Computer Society Press (1991)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley (1998)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spinellis, D.: Notable design patterns for domain specific languages. Journal of Systems and Software 56(1), 91–99 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tracz, W.: Domain-specific software architecture (DSSA) frequently asked questions (FAQ). Software Engineering Notes 19(2), 52–56 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dines Bjørner
    • 1
  1. 1.DTUKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations