INTEGRATING PROCESS- AND OBJECT-APPROACHES - An ontological imperative

Shivraj Kanungo

Abstract

There is an emerging belief about the virtually unanimous agreement that the object-oriented paradigm is superior to the classical (structured) paradigm. We do not accept such unqualified judgments. In this paper, we address the differences from the ontological perspective. We adopt a discursive approach to analysing and discussing the differences, similarities and resolution approaches. We accept the position that object-oriented programming is here to stay and is one of the legitimate silver bullets. Once we contrast the two approaches, we explain how the consumer of the approach perceives its utility. By employing this approach, we highlight the end-user and developer perspectives. We conclude the paper by restoring some perspective on the uncontested superiority of the object paradigm over the classical paradigm. Lastly, we highlight research and pedagogical issues regarding contemporary treatment of structured and object-oriented approaches.

References

  1. Alspaugh, T. A. and Anton, A. I. (2001). ObjectOrientation in Requirements, Specifications and Models, TR-2001-12, Department of Computer Science, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7534 USA, http://www.isr.uci.edu/alspaugh/pubs/alspaugh-tr12- oo-2001.pdf.
  2. Boehm, B.; Bose, P.; Horowitz, E. and Lee, M. J. (1995). Software Requirements Negotiation and Renegotiation Aids: A Theory-W Based Spiral Approach, Proceedings of ICSE 95.
  3. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I. (1996). The Unified Modeling Language for Object-Oriented Development, Version 0.9, Rational Software Corporation, July 1996.
  4. Coad, P. and Yourdon, E. (1991). Object Oriented Analysis, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ.
  5. de Champeaux, D.; Constantine, L.; Jacobson, I.; Mellor, S.; Ward , P; and Yourdon, E. (1990a). Panel session: Structured analysis and object-oriented analysis, Proceedings of the European Conference on objectoriented programming systems, languages, and applications, October 21-25, Ottawa, Canada. (Addendum to proceedings), 15-17.
  6. de Champeaux, D.; Constantine, L.; Jacobson, I.; Mellor, S.; Ward , P; and Yourdon, E. (1990b). Structured analysis and object oriented analysis, Proceedings of the European Conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, October 21-25, Ottawa, Canada, 135-139 .
  7. Dori, D. and Reinhartz-Berger, I. (2003). An OPM-Based Metamodel of System Development Process, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2003), Chicago Illinois, October 13-16.
  8. Easterbrook, S. (1991) Elicitation of Requirements from Multiple Perspectives PhD Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, London SW7 2BZ.
  9. Gane, C. P. and Sarson, T. (1979). Structured system analysis: Tools and techniques, Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  10. Gr├╝nbacher, P. and Briggs, R. O. (2001). Surfacing Tacit Knowledge in Requirements Negotiation: Experiences using EasyWinWin, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  11. Gruninger, M. and Lee, J. (2002). Ontology: Applications and design, Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 39- 47.
  12. Holbrook, C. H. (1990). A Scenario-Based Methodology for Conducting Requirement Elicitation, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 15 (1), 95- 104.
  13. Hughes, J. and Wood-Harper, T. (1999). An empirical model of the information system development process: A case study of an automotive manufacturer, Proceedings of the 10th Australian Conference on Information Systems, 1181-1192.
  14. IEEE (1998). 830-1998 IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications.
  15. Jacobson, I. (1992). Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use-Case Driven Approach, AddisonWesley: Reading, Massachusetts.
  16. Jacobson, I. (1994). The Object Advantage, AddisonWesley, Workingham, England.
  17. Jacobson, I., Christersson, M., Jonsson, P., and Overgaard, G.G. (1992). Object-Oriented Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
  18. Jordan, P. W.; Keller, K. S.; Tucker, R. W. and Vogel, D. (1989). Software Storming: Combining Rapid Prototyping and Knowledge Engineering, IEEE Computer, 39-48.
  19. Kendall, J.E. and Kendall, K.E. "Metaphors and Methodologies: Living Beyond the Systems Machine," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No.2, 1993, pp. 37-47.
  20. Kendall, J.E. and Kendall, K.E. Metaphors and their Meaning for Information Systems Development," European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1994, pp. 37-47.
  21. Kosaka, T. (1997). Task analysis makes is methodologies object oriented, Working Paper, Department of Management, Aichi-Gakuin University, (http://www.ms.kuki.sut.ac.jp/KMSLab/kosaka/papers /bcs9609.pdf), Last accessed October 30, 2003.
  22. Kvavik, K. H.; Karimi, S.; Cypher, A. and Mayhew, D. J. (1994). User-centered processes and evaluation in product development, Interaction, 1(3), 65-71.
  23. Lee, J. and Wyner, G. M. (2003). Defining specialization for dataflow diagrams, Information Systems, 28(6), 651-671.
  24. Parsons, J. and Wand, Y. (1997). Choosing classes in conceptual modeling. Communications of the ACM, 40(6), 63-69.
  25. Richards, D. (2000). A process model for requirements elicitation, Chan, Taizan: Ng, Celeste See Pui(Ed/s) in Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information System (ACIS 2000), Information Systems Management Research Centre, Queensland University, Brisbane, Australia.
  26. Rickman, D. M. (2000).A Process for Combining Object Oriented and Structured Analysis and Design, 3rd Annual Systems Engineering & Supportability Conference, 23-26 October.
  27. Ross, D. (1977). Structured analysis (SA): A language for communicating ideas, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 3(1), 16-34.
  28. Rumbaugh, J.; Blaha, M.; Premerlarni, W.; Eddy, F. and Lorenson, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ.
  29. Shlaer, S., and Mellor, S. (1992). Object LifeCycles: Modeling the World in States, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ.
  30. Soffer, P.; Golany, B.; Dori, D. and Wand, Y. (2001). Modeling off-the-shelf information system requirements: An ontological approach, Requirements Engineering, 6(3), 183-199.
  31. Steels, L. and Kaplan, F. (1999). Situated Grounded Word Semantics, IJCAI-99, the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 31-Aug 2, Stockholm, Sweden.
  32. Krogstie, J. (1998). Integrating the Understanding of Quality in Requirements Specification and Conceptual Modelling, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 3(1), 86-91.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kanungo S. (2004). INTEGRATING PROCESS- AND OBJECT-APPROACHES - An ontological imperative . In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 972-8865-00-7, pages 237-244. DOI: 10.5220/0002623402370244


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis04,
author={Shivraj Kanungo},
title={INTEGRATING PROCESS- AND OBJECT-APPROACHES - An ontological imperative},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2004},
pages={237-244},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002623402370244},
isbn={972-8865-00-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - INTEGRATING PROCESS- AND OBJECT-APPROACHES - An ontological imperative
SN - 972-8865-00-7
AU - Kanungo S.
PY - 2004
SP - 237
EP - 244
DO - 10.5220/0002623402370244