Giving Meaning to Enterprise Architectures: Architecture Principles with ORM and ORC

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4278)


Formalization of architecture principles by means of ORM and Object Role Calculus (ORC) is explored. After a discussion on reasons for formalizing such principles, and of the perceived relationship between principles and (business) rules, two exploratory example formalizations are presented and discussed. They concern architecture principles taken from The Open Group’s Architecture Framework (TOGAF). It is argued that when using ORM and ORC for formal modelling of architecture principles, the underlying logical principles of the techniques may lead to better insight into the rational structure of the principles. Thus, apart from achieving formalization, the quality of the principles as such can be improved.


Enterprise Architecture Business Rule Smart Objective Graphical Constraint Conceptual Query 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bloesch, A.C., Halpin, T.A.: ConQuer: A Conceptual Query Language. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 121–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halpin, T.A.: Business Rules and Object Role Modeling. Database Programming and Design 9(10), 66–72 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halpin, T.A.: Business Rule Modality. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2006), held in conjunctiun with the 18th Conference on Advanced Information Systems 2006 (CAiSE 2006), pp. 383–394. Namur University Press, Namur (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Information Systems 18(7), 489–523 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: Fact Calculus: Using ORM and Lisa–D to Reason About Domains. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 720–729. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems. Technical Report IEEE P1471–2000, The Architecture Working Group of the Software Engineering Committee, Standards Department, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA (September 2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lankhorst, M.M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meersman, R.: The RIDL Conceptual Language. Technical report, International Centre for Information Analysis Services, Control Data Belgium, Inc., Brussels, Belgium, EU (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Open Group. TOGAF – The Open Group Architectural Framework (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    (Erik) Proper, H.A.: ConQuer–92 – The revised report on the conceptual query language LISA–D. Technical report, Asymetrix Research Laboratory, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ross, R.G. (ed.): Business Rules Manifesto. Business Rules Group (November 2003), Version 2.0Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SBVR Team. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR). Technical Report dtc/06–03–02 (March 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenED Nijmegen, EUThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations