Transition from Information Systems to Service-Oriented Logical Architectures: Formalizing Steps and Rules with QVT

  • Nuno SantosEmail author
  • Nuno Ferreira
  • Ricardo J. Machado


Specifying functional requirements brings many difficulties namely when regarding the cloud services. During the analysis phase, the alignment between the process-level requirements (information systems) with the product-level requirements (service-based software) may not be properly achieved or even understood. In this chapter, we describe an approach that supports the creation of the intended requirements, beginning in a process-level and evolving to a product-level perspective, to elicit requirements for specifying services that execute in a cloud computing environment. The transition between perspectives are supported by UML model transformations, encompassing a set of transition rules using QVT, from one perspective to the other, in order to assure that process- and product-level requirements are aligned.


Information systems design Logical architectures Requirement analysis Model transformation Service-oriented logical architecture UML use cases Transition rules 


  1. 1.
    Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. (2009).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bianco, P., Kotermanski, R., Merson, P.: Evaluating a service-oriented architecture. (2007).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Standish Group: CHAOS Report 2014. (2014).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maibaum, T.: On specifying systems that connect to the physical world. New Trends Softw. Methodol. Tools Tech. (2006).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: A Systematic Review of Transformation Approaches between User Requirements and Analysis Models. Requir. Eng. Vol. 16, (2011).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Machado, R., Fernandes, J.E., Gasević, D.: A V-Model Approach for Business Process Requirements Elicitation in Cloud Design. In: Bouguettaya, A., Sheng, Q.Z., and Daniel, F. (eds.) Advanced Web Services. pp. 551–578. Springer New York (2014).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santos, N., Teixeira, J., Pereira, A., Ferreira, N., Lima, A., Simões, R., Machado, R.J.: A demonstration case on the derivation of process-level logical architectures for ambient assisted living ecosystems. In: Garcia, N.M. ‎ and Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living Book. pp. 103–139. CRC Press (2015).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salgado, C., Teixeira, J., Santos, N.: A SoaML Approach for Derivation of a Process-Oriented Logical Architecture from Use Cases. Explor. Serv. …. (2015).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Soares, P., Machado, R., Gašević, D.: A Demonstration Case on Steps and Rules for the Transition from Process-Level to Software Logical Architectures in Enterprise Models. In: Grabis, J., Kirikova, M., Zdravkovic, J., and Stirna, J. (eds.) The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. pp. 277–291. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2013).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT),
  11. 11.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Soares, P., Machado, R.J., Gasevic, D.: Transition from Process- to Product-level Perspective for Business Software, (2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Browning, T.R., Eppinger, S.D.: Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans Eng. Manag. 49, 428–442 (2002).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Machado, R.J., Fernandes, J., Monteiro, P., Rodrigues, H.: Refinement of Software Architectures by Recursive Model Transformations,, (2006).
  14. 14.
    Machado, R.J., Fernandes, J.M., Monteiro, P., Rodrigues, H.: Transformation of UML Models for Service-Oriented Software Architectures, (2005).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fernandes, J., Machado, R., Monteiro, P., Rodrigues, H.: A Demonstration Case on the Transformation of Software Architectures for Service Specification. In: Kleinjohann, B., Kleinjohann, L., Machado, R., Pereira, C., and Thiagarajan, P.S. (eds.) From Model-Driven Design to Resource Management for Distributed Embedded Systems. pp. 235–244. Springer US (2006).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azevedo, S., Machado, R.J., Muthig, D., Ribeiro, H.: Refinement of Software Product Line Architectures through Recursive Modeling Techniques,, (2009).
  17. 17.
    Azevedo, S., Machado, R., Maciel, R.: On the Use of Model Transformations for the Automation of the 4SRS Transition Method. In: Bajec, M. and Eder, J. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. pp. 249–264. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2012).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISOFIN: ISOFIN Research Project., (2010).
  19. 19.
    Jani, D., Vanderveken, D., Perry, D.: Experience Report: Deriving architecture specifications from KAOS specifications. (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kruchten, P.: The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Softw. 12, 42–50 (1995).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Open Group: TOGAF—The Open Group Architecture Framework,
  22. 22.
    Engelsman, W., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.: Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 5, 9–36 (2010).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clements, P., Garlan, D., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting software architectures: views and beyond, (2003).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied software architecture. Addison-Wesley Professional (2000).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Comput. Ind. 59, 647–659 (2008).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ullah, A., Lai, R.: Modeling business goal for business/it alignment using requirements engineering. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 51, 21 (2011).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarafdar, M., Qrunfleh, S.: IT-Business Alignment: A Two-Level Analysis. Inf. Syst. Manag. 26, 338–349 (2009).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strnadl, C.F.: Aligning Business and It: The Process-Driven Architecture Model. Inf. Syst. Manag. 23, 67–77 (2006).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Basili, V.R., Lindvall, M., Regardie, M., Seaman, C., Heidrich, J., Munch, J., Rombach, D., Trendowicz, A.: Linking Software Development and Business Strategy Through Measurement. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif). 43, 57–65 (2010).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70, 71–79 (1992).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang, C.D., Hu, Q.: Achieving IT-business strategic alignment via enterprise-wide implementation of balanced scorecards. Inf. Syst. Manag. 24, 173–184 (2007).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Herath, T., Herath, H., Bremser, W.G.: Balanced Scorecard Implementation of Security Strategies: A Framework for IT Security Performance Management. Inf. Syst. Manag. 27, 72–81 (2010).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Information Technology Governance Institute (ITGI): COBIT v5—A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. ISACA (2012).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan, H.B.K., Yang, Y., Bian, L.: Systematic Transformation of Functional Analysis Model into OO Design and Implementation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. Vol. 32, (2006).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Obbink, H., Müller, J., America, P., van Ommering, R., Muller, G., van der Sterren, W., Wijnstra, J.G.: COPA: A component-oriented platform architecting method for families of software-intensive electronic products. In: Tutorial for the First Software Product Line Conference., Denver, Colorado. (2000).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success. Addison Wesley Longman (1997).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weiss, D.M.: Software Product-Line Engineering: A Family-Based Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley Professional (1999).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kang, K.C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., Huh, M.: FORM: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Ann. Sw Eng. (1998).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bayer, J., Muthig, D., Göpfert, B.: The library system product line. A KobrA case study. Fraunhofer IESE. (2001).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matinlassi, M., Niemelä, E., Dobrica, L.: Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method, A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (2002).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Inf. Syst. (2002).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yu, E.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. In: Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., and Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. pp. 11–152. The MIT Press (2011).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lucena, M., Castro, J., Silva, C., Alencar, F., Santos, E., Pimentel, J.: A model transformation approach to derive architectural models from goal-oriented requirements models. In: OTM Confederated International Conferences“ On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems.” pp. 370–380. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2009).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R., Wile, D.: Acme: an architecture description interchange language. CASCON First Decad. High Impact Pap. (2010).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lamsweerde, A. Van: From system goals to software architecture. Form. Methods Softw. Archit. (2003).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dijkman, R.M.: Deriving use case diagrams from business process models. Tech. report, CTIT Tecnhical Rep. (2002).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture, (2006).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    OMG: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, (2003).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Iribarne, L., Padilla, N., Criado, J., Asensio, J.-A., Ayala, R.: A Model Transformation Approach for Automatic Composition of COTS User Interfaces in Web-Based Information Systems. Inf. Syst. Manag. 27, 207–216 (2010).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Redding, G., Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H.M. ter, Iordachescu, A.: Generating Business Process Models from Object Behavior Models. Inf. Syst. Manag. 25, 319–331 (2008).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuno Santos
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nuno Ferreira
    • 3
  • Ricardo J. Machado
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CCG/ZGDV InstituteUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.ALGORITMI Research CentreUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.I2S – Insurance Software SystemsPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations