Analytical Evaluation of Notational Adaptations to Capture Location of Activities in Process Models

When modeling work processes in mobile and multi-channel information systems by means of languages such as BPMN or UML activity diagrams it might be relevant to capture the location or other aspects of the user context of the activities performed. This report tries first to give an overview of various ways location could be captured in mainstream diagram notations, and then to evaluate analytically the advantages and disadvantages of these various notation alternatives. This evaluation is largely based on nine principles for visual notations stated by Moody (2009). While UML activity diagram notation is used as the basis for many of the examples, the notational means explored are of a fairly generic nature and would be usable also with other notations, such as BPMN. This work was partially funded by the Norwegian Research Council through the project M3W (Model-driven support for Multi-channel Mobile Work), which lasted from 2006-2010, but partially also conducted after the end of the M3W funding.

[1]  John Krogstie,et al.  Using a Semiotic Framework to Evaluate UML for the Development of Models of High Quality , 2001, Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues.

[2]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[3]  Jacques Bertin,et al.  Semiology of Graphics - Diagrams, Networks, Maps , 2010 .

[4]  Marius Mikalsen,et al.  Experiences from Model-Driven Development of Homecare Services: UML Profiles and Domain Models , 2008, MoDELS Workshops.

[5]  John Krogstie,et al.  Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework , 2006 .

[6]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Mal-Activity Diagrams for Capturing Attacks on Business Processes , 2007, REFSQ.

[7]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[8]  Carlo Batini,et al.  Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[9]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  John Krogstie,et al.  Assessing Enterprise Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework , 2005, Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies.

[11]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[12]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[13]  John Krogstie,et al.  Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework , 2003 .

[14]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling , 2006, Business Process Management.

[15]  Marlon Dumas,et al.  UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language , 2001, UML.

[16]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Onion graphs: aesthetics and layout , 1993, Proceedings 1993 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[17]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[19]  John Krogstie,et al.  Defining quality aspects for conceptual models , 1995, ISCO.

[20]  Thorsten Löffeler,et al.  The Information Logistics Approach Toward User Demand-Driven Information Supply , 2003 .