Service Modelling

  • M. W. A. Steen
  • M. E. Iacob
  • M. M. Lankhorst
  • H. Jonkers
  • M. Zoet
  • W. Engelsman
  • J. Versendaal
  • H. A. Proper
  • L. Debije
  • K. Gaaloul
Part of the The Enterprise Engineering Series book series (TEES)


The development of enterprise services involves making design decisions at different levels, ranging from strategic to infrastructural choices, and concerning many different aspects, ranging from customer interaction to information registration concerns. In order to support an agile development process with short iterations through each of these levels and aspect, we need to manage the inherent complexity and support rapid feedback on the impact of design decisions across the various aspects of service development. The use of models can help to manage the coherence among the different aspects in service design and in facilitating and accelerating changes. Therefore, we propose a comprehensive framework and method for service modelling and model integration as an important ingredient of an agile service development methodology. This method is aimed at providing a shorter path between requirements and execution through the use of models to feed run-time execution engines, fast validation at the model level, support for communication with stakeholders, integration of different aspects, domains and fields of expertise, and consistency across the enterprise.


Business Process Unify Modeling Language Context Model Abstraction Level Service Development 
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.


  1. Ambler SW (2002) Agile modeling: effective practices for eXtreme programming and the unified process. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquino N, Vanderdonckt J, Panach JI, Pastor O (2008) Conceptual modelling of interaction. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Spain. Accessed 28 Sept 2011
  3. von Brocke J, Rosemann M (2010) Handbook on business process management. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvary G, Coutaz J, Thevenin D, Limbourg Q, Bouillon L, Vanderdonckt J (2003) A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact Comput 15(3):289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen P (1976) The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1:9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Lara J, Vangheluwe H (2004) Meta-modelling and graph grammars for multi-paradigm modelling. Software Syst Model 3(3):194–209Google Scholar
  7. Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dividino R, Bicer V, Voigt K, Cardoso J (2009) Integrating business process and user interface models using a model-driven approach. 24th international symposium on computer and information sciences, Guzelyurt, Nothern Cyprus, 14–16 SeptGoogle Scholar
  9. Engelsman W, Quartel D, Jonkers H, van Sinderen M (2011) Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterprise Inform Syst 5(1):9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erl T (2009) SOA design patterns. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, See also Google Scholar
  11. van Es RM, Post HA (eds) (1996) Dynamic enterprise modelling: a paradigm shift in software implementation. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkenberg ED, Verrijn-Stuart AA, Voss K, Hesse W, Lindgreen P, Nilsson BE, Oei JLH, Rolland C, Stamper RK (eds) (1998) A framework of information systems concepts. IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO, IFIP, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordijn J, Akkermans JM (2001) e3-value: design and evaluation of e-business models. IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/Aug, pp 11–17Google Scholar
  14. von Halle B, Goldberg L (2009) The decision model: a business logic framework linking business and technology. Auerbach Publications, Taylor and FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halpin T, Morgan T (2008) Information modeling and relational databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. IDEF (1981) ICAM Architecture Part II-Volume IV—function modeling manual (IDEF0), AFWAL-TR-81-4023. Materials Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OHGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO/IEC (2008) Systems and software engineering—system life cycle processes, ISO/IEC 15288:2008. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, M (1990) Some complexities in computer-based systems and their implications for system development. Proceedings of international conference on computer systems and software engineering (CompEuro ‘90), Tel-Aviv, Israel, IEEE Computer Society Press, 8–10 May 1990, pp 344–351Google Scholar
  19. Lamsweerde A (2003) KAOS tutorial. Crediti, 5 SeptGoogle Scholar
  20. Lankhorst M et al (2009a) Enterprise architecture at work: modelling, communication and analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lankhorst M et al (2009b) Enterprise architecture at work, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marca DA, McGowan CL (1987) SADT: structured analysis and design technique. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. OMG (2008) Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR), version 1.0. formal/08-01-02. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  25. OMG (2009) Service oriented architecture modeling language (SoaML), version 1.0 beta 2. ptc/2009-12-09. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  26. OMG (2010) Object constraint language (OCL), version 2.3 beta 2. ptc/2010-11-42. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  27. OMG (2011a) OMG unified modeling language (OMG UML), superstructure, version 2.4.1. Formal/2011-08-05. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  28. OMG (2011b) Meta-object facility (MOF) core specification, version 2.4.1. Formal/2011-08-07. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  29. OMG (2011c) Business process modeling notation specification, version 2.0. Formal/2011-01-03. Object Management Group, Needham, MA, Google Scholar
  30. Papazoglou MP, van den Heuvel W-J (2007) Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. VLDB J 16:389–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sowa JF, Zachman JA (1992) Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 31(3):590–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinberg D, Budinsky F, Paternostro M, Merks E (2008) EMF—eclipse modeling framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens W, Myers G, Constantine L (1974) Structured design. IBM Syst J 13(2):115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. The Open Group (2009b) Navigating the SOA open standards landscape around architecture. The Open Group, Reading, UK, Google Scholar
  35. The Open Group (2011) The open group architectural framework (TOGAF) version 9.1 ‘Enterprise edition’. The Open Group, Reading, UK, Google Scholar
  36. The Open Group (2012) ArchiMate 2.0 specification, technical standard. The Open Group, Reading, UK, Google Scholar
  37. Trætteberg H (2009) Integrating dialog modeling and domain modeling: the case of Diamodl and the eclipse modeling framework. J Univers Comput Sci 14(19):3265–3278Google Scholar
  38. Vanderdonckt J (2005) A MDA-compliant environment for developing user interfaces of information systems. In: Pastor O, e Cunha J F (eds) Advanced information systems engineering, 17th international conference, CAiSE 2005, Porto, Portugal, June 13–17. LNCS 3520, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 16–31Google Scholar
  39. Versendaal J (1991) Separation of the User Interface and Application. PhD thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  40. W3C (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language. W3C recommendation. World wide web consortium.
  41. Yu ESK (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 226–235Google Scholar
  42. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26(3):276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. W. A. Steen
    • 1
  • M. E. Iacob
    • 2
  • M. M. Lankhorst
    • 1
  • H. Jonkers
    • 3
  • M. Zoet
    • 4
  • W. Engelsman
    • 3
  • J. Versendaal
    • 5
  • H. A. Proper
    • 6
    • 7
  • L. Debije
    • 8
  • K. Gaaloul
    • 6
  1. 1.NovayEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.BiZZdesignEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.University of Applied Sciences Utrecht and Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Utrecht University and University of Applied Sciences UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.CRP Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  7. 7.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  8. 8.O&iUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations