Advertisement

Revisiting Naur’s Programming as Theory Building for Enterprise Architecture Modelling

  • Balbir S. Barn
  • Tony Clark
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

The recent burgeoning interest in Enterprise Architecture and its focus on artifact driven methods is taken as a motivation for the re-appraisal of Peter Naur’s notion of “programming as theory building”. Naur strongly disputes the value of the role and orientation of the IS discipline around artifacts and argues that algorithmic methods do not lead to a theory of a domain. Such a viewpoint provides an alternative lens with which to view current developments and may lead to additional insights by providing the reader with a source for questioning and reflecting critically on the re-focusing of method design on conversation rather than artifact production . It is suggested that such a conversational framework based on Toulmin and Pask may provide a means to establish and test theory building views of enterprise architecture.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture Theory Building System Analyst Argumentation Model Information System Architecture 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Fetzer, J.H.: The role of models in computer science. The Monist 82(1), 20–36 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Floyd, C.: Eine untersuchung von software-entwicklings-methoden. In: Morgenbrod, H., Sammer, W., Tagung, I. (eds.) Programmierumgebugnen und Compiler, Tuebner Verlag (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H.A., der Weide, T.P.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Silva, E., Plazaola, L.: Using enterprise architecture for cio decision-making: On the importance of theory. In: The Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, CSER (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kruchten, P.: Documentation of Software Architecture from a Knowledge Management Perspective–Design Representation. Software Architecture Knowledge Management, 39–57Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, J.: The Anatomy of the ArchiMate Language. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(1)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moor, J.H.: Three myths of computer science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29(3), 213–222 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naur, P.: Computing: a human activity. ACM, New York (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naur, P.: Programming as theory building. Microprocessing and Microprogramming 15(5), 253–261 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The knowledge-creating company, New York, vol. 1 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pask, G.: Conversation, cognition and learning. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pohl, K.: The three dimensions of requirements engineering: A framework and its applications* 1. Information Systems 19(3), 243–258 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryle, G.: The concept ofmind, London, Hutchinson (1949)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, B.C.: Limits of correctness in computers. Academic Press Professional, Inc., London (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spencer, J., et al.: TOGAF Enterprise Edition Version 8.1 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toulmin, S.E.: The uses of argument. Cambridge Univ Pr., Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wisnosky, D.E., Vogel, J.: DoDAF Wizdom: A Practical Guide to Planning, Managing and Executing Projects to Build Enterprise Architectures Using the Department of Defense Architecture Framework, DoDAF (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wyssusek, B.: A philosophical re-appraisal of peter naur’s notion of programming as theory building. In: European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 38(2/3), 454–470 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Balbir S. Barn
    • 1
  • Tony Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityHendonUK

Personalised recommendations