Explaining conceptual models — An architecture and design principles

  • Hercules Dalianis
  • Paul Johannesson
Session 6a: Applid Modeling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1331)


An important activity in requirements engineering is validation, which is the process of checking whether a model correctly represents a piece of reality and the users' requirements. One technique for supporting validation is explanation generation which combines paraphrasing of a specification with question-answer facilities that interactively support a user in exploring a model. In this paper, we propose an architecture and design principles for constructing explanation generation systems for conceptual models. The architecture is partly based on Toulmin's argumentation model, which provides a framework for structuring arguments. We argue that this architecture assists in building explanation generation systems that are highly interactive, provide an adequate amount of information for different user categories, and support a wide range of validation techniques.


Fact Base Requirement Engineering Dynamic Rule Natural Language Generation Argumentation Model 
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. [Costal96]
    D. Costal, E. Teniente, T. Urpi, and C. Farre, “Handling Conceptual Model Validation by Planning”, 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [Dalianis92]
    H. Dalianis, “A Method for Validating a Conceptual Model by Natural Language Discourse Generation”, CAISE-92 International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Loueopoulos P. (Ed.), Springer LNCS 593, pp. 425–444, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [Dalianis92]
    H. Dalianis, Concise Natural Language Generation from Formal Specifications, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [Gulla96]
    J. A. Gulla, “A General Explanation Component for Conceptual Modelling in CASE Environments”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 297–329, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [Harel87]
    D. Harel, “Statecharts: a Visual Formalism for Complex Systems”, Science of Computer Programming, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 231–274, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [Höök93]
    H. Höök, A General Description of the Delphi Language, Ellemtel internal report, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [Kung93]
    D. Kung, “The Behavior Network Model for Conceptual Information Modelling”, Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [Mann87]
    W. Mann and S. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures”, in Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, Ed. M. Nijhoff, pp. 85–95, Dordrecht, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [Moore9l]
    J. Moore and W. Swartout, “A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User's Feedback into Account”, in Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–48, Dordrecht, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [Mylopoulos90]
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke and M. Koubarakis, “Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 325–362, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [Rolland92]
    C. Rolland and C. Proix, “Natural Language Approach to Conceptual Modeling”, in Conceptua Modeling Databases and CASE: An Integrated View of Information Systems Development, Ed. P. Loucopoulos and R. Zicari, pp. John Wiley, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [Seltveit93]
    A. Seltveit, “An Abstraction-based Rule Approach to Large-scale Information Systems Development”, in 5th International Conference on Advanced Information systems Engineering, Ed. pp. 328–351, Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [Toulmin59]
    S. Toulmin, The Uses of Arguments, Cambridge University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  14. [Zave84]
    P. Zave, “The Operational versus the Conventional approach to Software Development”, Communications of ACM, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 104–117, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hercules Dalianis
    • 1
  • Paul Johannesson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm University and the Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations