Advertisement

Abstract

Most conventional conceptual modeling approaches are not putting into a foreground interaction dependencies between actors. This is one of the main reasons why it is difficult to apply them for managing complexity of conceptual representations. The goal of this paper is to present conceptual modeling method, which allows constructing graphical representations of scenarios with a more comprehensible structure. Using simple interaction loops between organizational and technical components help designers to separate crosscutting concerns in system engineering without the requirement to specify a complete solution. The examples of sequential, iterative, parallel and alternative behavior are analyzed to demonstrate conceptual descriptions of use-case scenarios. The overlaying and underlying interaction loops among actors are easier to understand, extend and maintain.

Keywords

Interaction dependencies separation of concerns conversation for action schema interaction loops scenarios 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured System Analysis. Prentice-Hall, NJ (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured Design. Prentice-Hall, NJ (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language Superstructure, version 2.2 (2010) , www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.2/ (retrieved January 19, 2010)
  4. 4.
    Snoeck, M., Dedene, G., Verhelst, M., Depuydt, A.M.: Object-Oriented Enterprise Modelling with MERODE. Leuven University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P.-W.: Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases. Pearson, Pennsylvania (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., van Vliet, H.: Business 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
  7. 7.
    Wagner, G.: The Agent-Object-Relationship Metamodel: Towards Unified View of State and Behaviour. Information Systems 28, 5 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: DEMO: Towards a Discipline of Organisation Engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 351–363 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zachman, J.A.: A Framework for Information System Architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3) (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denning, P.J., Medina-Mora, R.: Completing the Loops. Interfaces 25, 42–57 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gustas, R.: Conceptual Modeling and Integration of Static and Dynamic Aspects of Service Architectures. In: International Workshop on Ontology, Conceptualization and Epistemology for Information Systems, Software Engineering and Service Sciences, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Ferrario, R., Guarino, N.: Towards an Ontological Foundation for Services Science. In: Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Traverso, P. (eds.) FIS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5468, pp. 152–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gustas, R.: Modeling Approach for Integration and Evolution of Information System Conceptualizations. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 2(1), 45–73 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winograd, T., Flores, R.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Norwood, N.J. (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior. Journal of Database Management 20(1), 48–77 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bunge, M.A.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology II: A World of Systems, vol. 4. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations