Interactions, Transitions and Inference Rules in Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling

Remigijus Gustas, Prima Gustiene

2016

Abstract

To obtain value from the graphical representations that are used by different stakeholders during the system development process, they must be integrated. This is important to achieve a holistic understanding about system specification. Integration can be reached via modelling process. Currently, most of information system modelling methods present different modelling aspects in disparate modelling dimensions and therefore it is difficult to achieve semantic integrity of various diagrams. In this paper, we present semantically integrated conceptual modelling method for information system analysis and design. The foundation of this modelling method is based on interactions. This way of modelling provides possibility of integration of business processes and business data. The inference rules of interactions help in reasoning about the decomposition of concepts. In this method, decomposition of the system is graphically described as classification, inheritance or composition of organizational and technical system components.

References

  1. Blaha, M., and Rumbaugh, J. (2005). Object-Oriented Modelling and Design with UML. London: Pearson.
  2. Bunge, M. A. (1979). Treatise on Basic Philosophy, vol. 4, Ontology II: A World of Systems. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company
  3. De Marco, T. (1979). Structured Analysis and System Specification. New York. Prentice Hall.
  4. Dietz, J. L. G. (2001). DEMO: Towards a Discipline of Organisation Engineering, European Journal of Operational Research (128), Elsevier Science, 351- 363.
  5. Dietz, J. L. G. (2006). Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Berlin: Springer.
  6. Dori, D. (2002). Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. Berlin: Springer.
  7. Evermann, J. and Wand, Y. (2009). Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 20, Issue No 1, 48-77.
  8. Ferrario, R., and Guarino, N. (2008). Towards an Ontological Foundation for service Science, First Future Internet Symposium, FIS 2008, Vienna, Austria, 152-169. Berlin: Springer.
  9. Gane, C., and Sarson, T. (1979). Structured System Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
  10. Gemino, A. (1998). To be or maybe to be: An empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling, Proc. Ann. Conf. Admin. Sci. Assoc. of Canada, Information Systems Division, Saskatoon, 33-44.
  11. Glinz, M. (2000). Problems and Deficiencies of UML as a Requirements Specification Language, Proc. of the 10- th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, San Diego, 11-22.
  12. Guizzardi, G. (2007). Modal Aspects of Object Types and Part-Whole Relations and the de re/de dicto distinction, 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Trondheim, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4495. Springer. .
  13. Gustas, R. (2010). A Look behind Conceptual Modeling Constructs in Information System Analysis and Design, International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, Vol. 1, Issue No 1, 78-107.
  14. Gustas, R., and Gustiene, P. (2012). Conceptual Modeling Method for Separation of Concerns and Integration of Structure and Behavior, International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, vol. 3 (1), 48-77.
  15. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., and van Vliet, H. (2000). Business Process Modelling is not Process Modelling, Conceptual Modelling for E-Business and the Web, LNCS 1921, 40-51. Berlin: Springer.
  16. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't Automate, Obliterate, Harvard Business review, 104- 112.
  17. Harel, D., Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful Modeling: What's the Semantics of 'Semantics'?, IEEE Computer, 64-72.
  18. Jacobson, I., and NG, P-W. (2005) Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases. Pennsylvania: Pearson Education.
  19. Lankhortst, M. (2005). Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication, and Analysis. Berlin: Springer.
  20. McCarthy, W.E. (1982). The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment. The Accounting Review, Vol. LVII, No. 3, 554-578.
  21. Nuseibeh, B., and Easterbrook, S. (2000). Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering: International Conference on Software Engineering New York: ACM Press, 35-46.
  22. OMG. (2009) Unified Modeling Language Superstructure, version 2.2. Retrieved from www.omg.org/ spec/UML/2.2
  23. Zachman, J. A. (1987) A Framework for Information System Architecture, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26, No 3.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Gustas R. and Gustiene P. (2016). Interactions, Transitions and Inference Rules in Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling . In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD, ISBN 978-989-758-190-8, pages 11-21. DOI: 10.5220/0006221700110021


in Bibtex Style

@conference{bmsd16,
author={Remigijus Gustas and Prima Gustiene},
title={Interactions, Transitions and Inference Rules in Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,},
year={2016},
pages={11-21},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006221700110021},
isbn={978-989-758-190-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,
TI - Interactions, Transitions and Inference Rules in Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling
SN - 978-989-758-190-8
AU - Gustas R.
AU - Gustiene P.
PY - 2016
SP - 11
EP - 21
DO - 10.5220/0006221700110021