UML vs. IDEF: AN ONTOLOGY-ORIENTED COMPARATIVE STUDY IN VIEW OF BUSINESS MODELLING

Ovidiu Noran

Abstract

The UML and IDEF sets of languages characterize typical modelling approaches of software engineering and computer integrated manufacturing, respectively. This paper presents a comparative analysis of these languages based on their ontologies and in view of their use in business modelling. A brief introduction to UML and IDEF is followed by a high-level comparison taking into account underlying paradigms and language structure. This is followed by a comparative assessment of the expressive power of the two groups of languages, based on the ontologies of their relevant components. The analysis is structured using a set of views deemed appropriate for the modelling domain (i.e. business). The key findings of this paper aim to provide an insight into the suitability of UML ’versus’ that of IDEF in business modelling.

References

  1. Arnesen, K. and Krogstie, J. (2002). Comparing Languages for Enterprise Modeling using a Language Quality Framework. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
  2. Booch, G. (1991). Object-Oriented Design With Applications. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood City, CA.
  3. Bruce, T. (1992). Designing Quality Databases with IDEF1X Information models. Dorset House.
  4. Chen, P. (1999). The entity-relationship model - towards a uni ed view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1:9-36.
  5. Cho, H. (2000). IDEF Overview. Manufacturing Systems Integration Lab, Department of Industrial Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology.
  6. Codd, E. (1970). A relational model for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13:397-434.
  7. Crane eld, S. and Purvis, M. (1999). Uml as an ontology modeling language. In Proc. of the Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, 16th Int. Joint Conference on AI.
  8. Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., and Chen, D. (1998). GRAI grid decisional modelling. In Bernus, P., Mertins, K., and Schmidt, G., editors, Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pages 313-339. Springer, Heidelberg.
  9. Eriksson, H.-E. and Penker, M. (1999). Business Modelling with UML. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  10. Ettlinger, B. (1999). IDEF1X vs. UML: A comparative analysis. Technical report, Information Technology Division, N.Y. Power Authority, White Plains, NY.
  11. Fowler, M. and Scott, K. (2000). UML Distilled. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
  12. Genesereth, M. and Fikes, R. (1992). Knowledge interchange format version 3.0 - reference manual. Report Logic-92-1, Logic Group, Stanford University, CA.
  13. Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 2, 2:199-220.
  14. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8.
  15. Hay, D. (1995). A comparison of data modelling techniques. The Database Newsletter, 23.
  16. IEEE (1998). Standard for function modelling language - Syntax and semantics for IDEF0, IEEE 1320.1:1998.
  17. ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1 (2000). ISO/IS 15704: Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprisereference architectures and methodologies. ISO/IS.
  18. Jacobson, I. (1994). Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  19. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., and Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The Unied Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  20. Keidel, R. (1999). Seeing Organisational Patterns. BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, CA.
  21. Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. University Press of America, Inc.
  22. Marshall, C. (1999). Enterprise Modelling with UML - Designing Successful Software Through Business Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  23. Mayer, R., Benjamin, P., Menzel, C., Fillion, F., deWitte, P., Futrell, M., and Lingineni, M. (1994). IDEF5 ontology capture method report. Technical report, WrightPatterson AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
  24. Mayer, R., Keen, A., Browne, D., Harrington, S., Marshall, C., Painter, M., Schafrik, F., Huang, J., Wells, M., and Hisesh, H. (1995). IDEF4 object-oriented design method report. Technical report, Wright-Patterson AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
  25. Mayer, R., Menzel, C., Painter, M., deWitte, P., Blinn, T., and Benjamin, P. (1993). IDEF3 process description capture method report. Technical report, WrightPatterson AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
  26. Menzel, C. and Mayer, R. (1998). The IDEF family of languages. In Bernus, P., Mertins, K., and Schmidt, G., editors, Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pages 209-241. Springer, Heidelberg.
  27. NIST (1993a). Integration de nition for function modelling (IDEF0). Technical report, Computer Systems Laboratory, National Institute of Stds and Technology.
  28. NIST (1993b). Integration de nition for information modelling (IDEF1X). Technical report, Computer Systems Laboratory, National Inst of Stds and Technology.
  29. Noran, O. (1999). Business modelling: UML vs. IDEF. Technical report, School of Computers and Information Technology, Grif th University, Brisbane, Australia. Available at http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/noran.
  30. OMG (1999a). Object Constraint Language Speci cation, version 1.3. Framingham, MA.
  31. OMG (1999b). UML Semantics v1.3. Framingham, MA.
  32. Ross, D. (1987). Structured analysis (sa): A language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 3:16-34.
  33. Rumbaugh, J, ., Jacobson, I., and Booch, G. (1999). The Uni ed Modelling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  34. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, F., Eddy, F., and Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
  35. Schreiber, G. (1999). Knowledge Engineering and Management. MIT Press.
  36. Shlaer, S. and Mellor, S. (1988). Object-Oriented Systems Analysis: Modeling The Real World in Data. PrenticeHall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
  37. Si-Alhir, S. (1998). UML in a Nutshell. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.
  38. Sowa, J. (1998). Conceptual graphs. In Bernus, P., Mertins, K., and Schmidt, G., editors, Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pages 287-311. Springer, Heidelberg.
  39. Warmer, J. and Kleppe, A. (1998). The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Noran O. (2004). UML vs. IDEF: AN ONTOLOGY-ORIENTED COMPARATIVE STUDY IN VIEW OF BUSINESS MODELLING . In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 972-8865-00-7, pages 674-682. DOI: 10.5220/0002629306740682


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis04,
author={Ovidiu Noran},
title={UML vs. IDEF: AN ONTOLOGY-ORIENTED COMPARATIVE STUDY IN VIEW OF BUSINESS MODELLING},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2004},
pages={674-682},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002629306740682},
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 - UML vs. IDEF: AN ONTOLOGY-ORIENTED COMPARATIVE STUDY IN VIEW OF BUSINESS MODELLING
SN - 972-8865-00-7
AU - Noran O.
PY - 2004
SP - 674
EP - 682
DO - 10.5220/0002629306740682