Challenges of Modelling LandscapesPragmatics Swept Under the Carpet?

Marija Bjeković, Henderik A. Proper

2013

Abstract

In enterprise modelling, a wide range of models and languages is used to support different purposes. If left uncontrolled, this can easily result in a fragmented perspective on the enterprise, its processes and IT support. On its turn, this negatively affects traceability, the ability to do crosscutting analysis, and the overall coherence of models. Different strategies are suggested to achieve model integration. They mainly address syntactic-semantics aspects of models/languages, and only to a limited extent their pragmatics. In actual use, the ‘standardising’ and ‘integrating’ effects of traditional approaches (e.g. UML, ArchiMate) erodes. This is typically manifested by the emergence of local ‘dialects’, ‘light weight versions’, as well as extensions of the standard to cover ‘missing aspects’. This paper aims to create more awareness of the factors that are at play when creating integrated modelling landscapes. Relying on our ongoing research, we develop a fundamental understanding of the driving forces and challenges related to modelling and linguitic variety within modelling landscapes. In particular, the paper discusses the effect of a priori fixed languages in modelling and model integration efforts, and argues that they bring about the risk of neglecting the pragmatic richness needed across practical modelling situations.

References

  1. Anaby-Tavor, A., Amid, D., Fisher, A., Bercovici, A., Ossher, H., Callery, M., Desmond, M., Krasikov, S., and Simmonds, I. (2010). Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling. Data Knowl. Eng., 69(12):1302-1318.
  2. Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevicius, R., Opdahl, A. L., Panetto, H., and Verdecho, M. (2010). The Unified Enterprise Modelling Language - Overview and Further Work. Computers in Industry, 61:99-111.
  3. Barjis, J. (2009). Collaborative, Participative and Interactive Enterprise Modeling. In ICEIS, pages 651-662.
  4. Bézivin, J., Bouzitouna, S., Fabro, M. D. D., Gervais, M.-P., Jouault, F., Kolovos, D. S., Kurtev, I., and Paige, R. F. (2006). A canonical scheme for model composition. In ECMDA-FA, pages 346-360.
  5. Bjekovic, M., Proper, H. A., and Sottet, J.-S. (2012). Towards a coherent enterprise modelling landscape. In PoEM (Short Papers). CEUR-WS.org.
  6. Briand, L. C., Melo, W. L., Seaman, C. B., and Basili, V. R. (1995). Characterizing and Assessing a Large-Scale Software Maintenance Organization. In ICSE, pages 133-143.
  7. Bubenko, J. A. j., Persson, A., and Stirna, J. (2010). An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling. In Salinesi, C., Nurcan, S., Souveyet, C., and Ralyté, J., editors, Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, pages 215-237. Springer.
  8. Clark, H. (1993). Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press.
  9. Cruse, A. (2011). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  10. Davies, I., Green, P. F., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., and Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng., 58(3):358- 380.
  11. Delen, D., Dalal, N. P., and Benjamin, P. C. (2005). Integrated modeling: the key to holistic understanding of the enterprise. Commun. ACM, 48(4):107-112.
  12. Egyedi, T. M. (2007). Standard-compliant, but incompatible?! Computer Standards & Interfaces, 29(6):605- 613.
  13. Elahi, G., Yu, E. S. K., and Annosi, M. C. (2008). Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis. In PoEM 2008, pages 15-29.
  14. Fabro, M. D. D. and Valduriez, P. (2009). Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Software and System Modeling, 8(3):305-324.
  15. Falkenberg, E. and Oei, J. (1994). Meta Model Hierarchies from an Object-Role Modelling Perspective. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Object-Role Modelling (ORM-1), pages 218-227.
  16. Falkenberg, E. D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B. E., Oei, J., Rolland, C., Stamper, R. K., Assche, F. J. V., Verrijn-Stuart, A. A., and Voss, K. (1998). FRISCO - A Framework of Information System Concepts - The FRISCO Report. Technical report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO.
  17. Fauconnier, G. (2010). Mental Spaces. In Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H., editor, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguisics, pages 351-376. Ofxord University Press.
  18. Favre, J. and Nguyen, T. (2004). Towards a megamodel to model software evolution through transformation. In SETRA workshop.
  19. Frank, U. (2002). Multi-perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO) - Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In Proceedings of HICSS'02, volume 3. IEEE.
  20. Frank, U. (2011). Some Guidelines for the Conception of Domain-Specific Modelling Languages. In EMISA, pages 93-106.
  21. Gordijn, J. and Akkermans, H. (2003). Value based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering Journal, 8(2):114- 134.
  22. Greefhorst, D., Koning, H., and Van Vliet, H. (2006). The many faces of architectural descriptions. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2):103-113.
  23. Harel, D. and Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful Modeling: What's the Semantics of ”Semantics”? IEEE Computer, 37(10):64-72.
  24. Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2003). Freezing Language; Conceptualisation processes in ICT supported organisations.
  25. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., and Weide, T. v. d. (2005). A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In Conceptual Modeling - ER 2005, volume 3716, pages 128-143. Springer.
  26. Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A. and Wilmont, I. (2010). Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and Answering in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games. In PoEM 2010, pages 190-204.
  27. Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H., and Quartel, D. (2012). ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. The Open Group.
  28. ISO (2011). ISO/IEC/IEEE 40210:2011 Systems and software engineering - Architecture description.
  29. Kaidalova, J., Seigerroth, U., Kaczmarek, T., and Shilov, N. (2012). Practical Challenges of Enterprise Modeling in the Light of Business and IT Alignment. In PoEM 2012, pages 31-45.
  30. Karagiannis, D. and Höfferer, P. (2006). Metamodels in Action: An overview. In ICSOFT (1). INSTICC Press.
  31. Karlsen, A. (2011). Enterprise Modeling Practice in ICTEnabled Process Change. In PoEM 2011, pages 208- 222.
  32. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., and Jørgensen, H. D. (2006). Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS, 15(1):91-102.
  33. Lankhorst, M., editor (2005). Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  34. Lankhorst, M., Torre, L. v. d., Proper, H., Arbab, F., and Steen, M. (2005). Viewpoints and Visualisation. In (Lankhorst, 2005), pages 147-190.
  35. Lankhorst, M. M., Proper, H. A., and Jonkers, H. (2010). The anatomy of the archimate language. IJISMD, 1(1):1-32.
  36. Linden, D. J. T. v. d., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lartseva, A., and Molnar, W. (2012). Using Psychometrics to Explicate Personal Ontologies in Enterprise Modeling. Applied Ontology, 7:1-15.
  37. Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Muccini, H., Pellicone, P., and Tang, A. (2012). What industry needs from architectural languages: an industrial study. Technical report, University of L'Aquilla.
  38. Moody, D. (2009). The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(6):756-779.
  39. Novodranova, V. F. (2009). Representation of the Language Personality in LSP. In Reconceptualizing LSP , Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium.
  40. OMG (2003). UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification - Final Adopted Specification. Technical Report ptc/03-08- 02.
  41. OMG (2006). Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR). Technical Report dtc/06-03-02, Object Management Group, Needham, Massachusetts.
  42. OMG (2008). Business Process Modeling Notation, V1.1. OMG Available Specification OMG Document Number: formal/2008-01-17.
  43. Opdahl, A., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., and Matulevicius, R. (2012). Ontology for Enterprise and Information Systems Modelling. Applied Ontology, 7(1):49-92.
  44. Ossher, H., Bellamy, R. K. E., Amid, D., Anaby-Tavor, A., Callery, M., Desmond, M., de Vries, J., Fisher, A., Frauenhofer, T., Krasikov, S., Simmonds, I., and Swart, C. (2009). Business insight toolkit: Flexible pre-requirements modeling. In ICSE Companion, pages 423-424. IEEE.
  45. Proper, H. A., Verrijn-Stuart, A. A., and Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2005). On Utility-based Selection of ArchitectureModelling Concepts. In APCCM 2005, pages 25-34.
  46. Rothenberg, J. (1989). The Nature of Modeling. In Artificial intelligence, simulation & modeling, pages 75- 92. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
  47. Schmid, H.-J. (2010). Entrenchment, Salience, and Basic Levels. In Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H., editor, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pages 117-138. Oxford University Press.
  48. Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  49. Stirna, J. and Persson, A. (2012). Evolution of an Enterprise Modeling Method - Next Generation Improvements of EKD. In PoEM 2012, pages 1-15.
  50. Thalheim, B. (2011). The Theory of Conceptual Models, the Theory of Conceptual Modelling and Foundations of Conceptual Modelling. In Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, pages 543-577. Springer.
  51. Thalheim, B. (2012). Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Conceptual Modelling. In NLDB, pages 1-10. Springer.
  52. Vallecillo, A. (2010). On the Combination of Domain Specific Modeling Languages. In ECMFA, pages 305- 320.
  53. Vernadat, F. (2002). UEML: Towards a Unified Enterprise Modelling Language. International Journal of Production Research, 40(17):4309-4321.
  54. Wagter, R., Proper, H., and Witte, D. (2012). A PracticeBased Framework for Enterprise Coherence. In Proceedings of PRET 2012, volume 120 of LNBIP. Springer. To appear.
  55. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition - A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  56. Winter, R. and Fischer, R. (2007). Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. Journal Of Enterprise Architecture, 3(2):7-18.
  57. Wood-Harper, A., Antill, L., and Avison, D. (1985). Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  58. Yu, E. and Mylopoulos, J. (1996). Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 5(1):1-13.
  59. Zachman, J. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3).
  60. Zivkovic, S., Kühn, H., and Karagiannis, D. (2007). Facilitate Modelling Using Method Integration: An Approach Using Mappings and Integration Rules. In ECIS, pages 2038-2049.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Bjeković M. and A. Proper H. (2013). Challenges of Modelling LandscapesPragmatics Swept Under the Carpet? . In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD, ISBN 978-989-8565-56-3, pages 11-22. DOI: 10.5220/0004773600110022


in Bibtex Style

@conference{bmsd13,
author={Marija Bjeković and Henderik A. Proper},
title={Challenges of Modelling LandscapesPragmatics Swept Under the Carpet?},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,},
year={2013},
pages={11-22},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004773600110022},
isbn={978-989-8565-56-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,
TI - Challenges of Modelling LandscapesPragmatics Swept Under the Carpet?
SN - 978-989-8565-56-3
AU - Bjeković M.
AU - A. Proper H.
PY - 2013
SP - 11
EP - 22
DO - 10.5220/0004773600110022