Advertisement

Abstract

Many previous attempts at classifying business rules rely on over-simplistic frameworks that conflate business concerns with technical features. Such frameworks hamper traceability between information systems and business needs and can lead to paradoxes that are difficult to reconcile. This paper offers an alternative framework for business constraints, including those that can be embodied in information systems. We assume that such information systems are likely to be automated, but the proposed scheme does not rely on any automation. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the issues that arise with current classification frameworks and the benefits that a more realistic framework can provide.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Enterprise Architecture International Standard Organization Source Domain Business Rule 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Carver, A., Morgan, T.: Characterizing Business Rules for Practical Information Systems. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 443–452. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Senate: Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Object Management Group (OMG): OMG Model Driven Architecture, http://www.omg.org/mda/
  4. 4.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zachman International: A Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework (2008), http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework
  6. 6.
    International Standards Organization (ISO): Information technology - Open Distributed Processing - Reference model (RM-ODP), ISO/IEC 10746 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO): Enterprise Architecture Development Tool-Kit v3.0 (2004), http://www.nascio.org/resources/EAresources.cfm2004
  8. 8.
    The Object Management Group (OMG): The Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 2.4.1, http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
  9. 9.
    International Standards Organization (ISO): Systems and software engineering - Architecture description, ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework, TOGAF (2011), http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/
  11. 11.
    The US Department of Defense: DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.5, Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines (DoDAF) (2007), http://dodcio.defense.gov/docs/DoDAF_Volume_I.pdf
  12. 12.
    The UK Ministry of Defence: MOD Architecture Framework (MODAF) V1.2.004 (2010), http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/InformationManagement/MODAF/
  13. 13.
    The Object Management Group (OMG): The Business Motivation Model (BMM), Version 1.1 (2010), http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM/1.1/
  14. 14.
    The Object Management Group (OMG): Semantics Of Business Vocabulary And Rules (SBVR) Version 1.0 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
  15. 15.
    International Standards Organization (ISO): Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base, ISO TC97/SC5/WG3 (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Carver
    • 1
  • Tony Morgan
    • 1
  1. 1.INTI International UniversityMalaysia

Personalised recommendations