Advertisement

Systematic Derivation of Class Diagrams from Communication-Oriented Business Process Models

  • Arturo González
  • Sergio España
  • Marcela Ruiz
  • Óscar Pastor
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 81)

Abstract

Enterprise information systems can be developed following a model-driven paradigm. This way, models that represent the organisational work practice are used to produce models that represent the information system. Current software development methods are starting to provide guidelines for the construction of conceptual models, taking as input requirements models. This paper proposes the integration of two methods: Communication Analysis (a communication-oriented requirements engineering method [1]) and the OO Method (a model-driven object-oriented software development method [2]). For this purpose, a systematic technique for deriving class diagrams from business process models is proposed. The business process specifications (which include message structures) are processed in order to obtain class diagram views, which are integrated to create the class diagram incrementally. Then, using the olivanova framework, software source code can be generated automatically. The paper also discusses the advantages and current limitations of the technique. Results show that, although there is room for improvement, the technique is feasible and it does facilitate the creation of the class diagram.

Keywords

Information systems requirements model business process model model transformation class diagram Communication Analysis OO-Method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    España, S., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: Communication Analysis: a requirements engineering method for information systems. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 530–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pastor, O., Molina, J.C.: Model-Driven Architecture in practice: a software production environment based on conceptual modeling. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Syst. J. 38(2-3), 472–484 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    España, S., Ruiz, M., Pastor, Ó., González, A.: Systematic derivation of state machines from communication-oriented business process models. In: RCIS 2011. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    España, S., González, A., Pastor, Ó., Ruiz, M.: Integration of Communication Analysis and the OO-Method: Manual derivation of the conceptual model. The SuperStationery Co. lab demo. Technical report ProS-TR-2011-01 (2011), http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0105
  6. 6.
    CARE Technologies. OLIVA NOVA The Programming Machine, http://www.care-t.com
  7. 7.
    Weigand, H.: Two decades of the language-action perspective. Introduction. Commun. ACM 49(5), 44–46 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Díaz, I., Sánchez, J., Matteo, A.: Conceptual modeling based on transformation linguistic patterns. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 192–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Insfrán, E., Pastor, Ó., Wieringa, R.: Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Requir. Eng. 7(2), 61–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kösters, G., Six, H.-W., Winter, M.: Coupling use cases and class models as a means for validation and verification of requirements specifications. Requir. Eng. 6(1), 3–17 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortuna, M., Werner, C., Borges, M.: Info Cases: integrating use cases and domain models. In: 16th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 81–84. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de la Vara, J.L., Sánchez, J.: System modeling from extended task descriptions. In: 22nd Int. Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 425–429 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    España, S., Condori-Fernandez, N., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: An empirical comparative evaluation of requirements engineering methods. J. Braz. Comp. Soc. 16(1), 3–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reijers, H.A., Limam, S., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Product-based workflow design. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 20(1), 229–262 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun, S.X., Zhao, J.L., Nunamaker, J.F., Liu Sheng, O.R.: Formulating the data-flow perspective for business process management. Inform. Syst. Res. 17(4), 374–391 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González, A., España, S., Pastor, Ó.: Unity criteria for business process modelling: A theoretical argumentation for a Software Engineering recurrent problem. In: RCIS 2009, pp. 173–182. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    González, A., Ruiz, M., España, S., Pastor, Ó.: Message Structures: a modelling technique for information systems analysis and design. In: WER 2011 (2011), Extended version available http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5341
  20. 20.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody, D.L.: The Method Evaluation Model: A theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003 (2003) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruiz, M., S. España, A. Gonzalez, and O. Pastor, Análisis de Comunicaciones como un enfoque de requisitos para el desarrollo dirigido por modelos. In: Avila-García, O., Cabot, J., Muñoz, J., Romero, J.R., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) DSDM 2010, JISBD, pp. 70-77 (2010) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) version 2.0 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arturo González
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sergio España
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marcela Ruiz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Óscar Pastor
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.DSICSpain
  2. 2.Centro de Investigación ProSSpain
  3. 3.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaSpain

Personalised recommendations