Integration of Interactive, Behavioral and Structural Aspects of Conceptual Models

  • Remigijus Gustas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)

Abstract

Conceptual modeling is an essential part of enterprise engineering activity. Unfortunately, enterprise modeling methods are projecting interactive, behavioral and structural dimensions of conceptualizations into totally different diagram types. If static and dynamic aspects are analyzed separately, they are more difficult to visualize and to understand for stakeholders. Moreover, in the traditional approaches, there is a paradigmatic mismatch among different enterprise architecture modeling dimensions. Analysis of interplay among interactions, state changes and object creation/termination effects is necessary for understanding integrity problems of conceptualizations. The goal of this paper is to present a modeling approach for semantic integration of static and dynamic views of conceptual models. The presented modeling method can be used for separation of crosscutting concerns of computation neutral specifications.

Keywords

Semantic integration of static and dynamic views separation of crosscutting concerns behavior interaction structural changes of objects 

References

  1. Blaha, M., Rumbaugh, J.: Object-Oriented Modelling and Design with UML. Pearson, London (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should Optional Properties be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and three Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research 12(4), 384–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunge, M.A.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy Ontology II: A World of Systems, vol. 4. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1979)Google Scholar
  4. Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  6. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior. Journal of Database Management 20(1), 48–77 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured System Analysis. Prentice Hall, NJ (1979)Google Scholar
  8. Gemino, A.: To be or maybe to be: An empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling. In: Proc. Ann. Conf. Admin. Sci. Assoc. of Canada, Information Systems Division, Saskatoon, pp. 33–44 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. Glinz, M.: Problems and Deficiencies of UML as a Requirements Specification Language. In: Proc. of the 10-th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, San Diego, pp. 11–22 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. van Griethuisen, J.J.: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and Information Base, Report ISO TC97/SC5/WG5, No 695 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. Gustas, R., Gustiene, P.: Pragmatic – Driven Approach for Service-Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Information Systems Engineering - from Data Analysis to Process Networks. IGI Global, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Gustas, R., Gustiene, P.: Service-Oriented Foundation and Analysis Patterns for Conceptual Modelling of Information Systems. In: Information System Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory and Education, vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Gustas, R.: A Look behind Conceptual Modeling Constructs in Information System Analysis and Design. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(1), 79–108 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., van Vliet, H.: Business Process Modelling is not Process Modelling. In: Mayr, H.C., Liddle, S.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER Workshops 2000. LNCS, vol. 1921, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of ‘Semantics’? IEEE Computer, 64–72 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson, I.: NG, P-W. Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases. Pearson Education, Pennsylvania (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, NJ (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The Anatomy of the ArchiMate Language. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(1), 1–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. Martin, J., Odell, J.J.: Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation (UML edn.) Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  20. OMG. Unified Modeling Language Superstructure, version 2.2. (2010), www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.2/ (retrieved January 19, 2010)
  21. Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured Design. Prentice Hall, NJ (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remigijus Gustas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsKarlstad UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations