Advertisement

Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications)

  • Haim Kilov
  • Bernhard Rumpe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1543)

Abstract

Business specifications are essential to describe and understand businesses (and, in particular, business rules) independently of any computing systems used for their possible automation. They have to express this understanding in a clear, precise, and explicit way, in order to act as a common ground between business domain experts and software developers. They also provide the basis for reuse of concepts and constructs (“patterns”) common to all - from finance to telecommunications -, or a large number of, businesses, and in doing so save intellectual effort, time and money. Moreover, these patterns substantially ease the elicitation and validation of business specifications during walkthroughs with business customers, and support separation of concerns using viewpoints.

Keywords

Business Process Information Modeling Dynamic Logic Business Rule Knowledge Type 
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.
    E.W. Dijkstra. On the teaching of programming, i.e. on the teaching of thinking. In: Language hierarchies and interfaces (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 46), Springer Verlag, 1976, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    System description methodologies (Ed. by) D. Teichroew and G. David). Proceedings of the IFIP TC2 Conference on System Description Methodologies. North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles F. Dunbar. Chapters on the theory and history of banking. Second edition, enlarged and edited by O.M.W. Sprague. G.P.Putnam’s Sons, New York and London, 1901.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2nd corrected reprint. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1933.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haim Kilov, Bernhard Rumpe. Summary of ECOOP’97 Workshop on Precise Semantics of Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques. In: Object-oriented technology: ECOOP’97 Workshop Reader. Ed. by Jan Bosch and Stuart Mitchell. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1357, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haim Kilov, Bernhard Rumpe. Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specification). Workshop proceedings, Technical report, Technische Universität München TUM-I9813. 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z. Diskin and B. Kadish. Variable set semantics for generalized sketches: Why ER is more object-oriented than OO. To appear in Data and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J C Bicarregui, K C Lano, T S E Maibaum, Objects, Associations and Subsystems: a hierarchical approach to encapsulation. ECOOP 97, LNCS, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook S., Daniels J., Designing Object Systems: Object-oriented Modelling with Syntropy, Prentice Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lano K., Bicarregui J., UML Refinement and Abstraction Transformations, ROOM 2 Workshop, Bradford University, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K Lano, Logical Specification of Reactive and Real-Time Systems, to appear in Journal of Logic and Computation, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rational Software et al, UML Notation Guide, Version 1.1, http://www.rational.com/uml, 1997.
  13. 13.
    C. Pons, G. Baum, M. Felder. A dynamic logic framework for the formal foundation of object-oriented analysis and design, Technical Report. http://lifia-info.unlp.edu.ar/~cpons.
  14. 14.
    Kilov, Haim, and James Ross (1994), Information Modeling: An Object-Oriented Approach. Prentice-Hall Object-Oriented Series.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osborne, Martin J., and Ariel Rubinstein(1994), A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wand, Yair, and Richard Wang (1994), ┐Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations,” TDQM Research Program, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morabito, J., Sack, I., and Bhate, A., forthcoming book on Organizational Modeling, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thalassinidis, A.E., and Sack, I. “An Ontologic Foundation of Strategic Signals,” OOPSLA’97 Workshop on Object-oriented Behavioral Semantics, pp. 185–192.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thalassinidis, A.E., and Sack, I. “On the Specifications of Electronic Commerce Economics,” ECOOP’97 Precise Semantics for Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques, pp. 157–163.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thalassinidis, A.E., “An Ontologic and Epistemic, Meta-Game-Theoretic Approach to Attrition Signaling in a Globalized, Electronic Business Environment,” Ph.D. Thesis, Stevens Institute of Technology, May 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haim Kilov
    • 1
  • Bernhard Rumpe
    • 2
  1. 1.World Financial CenterMerrill Lynch, Operations, Services and TechnologyNew York
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations