Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modeling Method and Modeling Patterns

Managing evolutionary changes, identification of discontinuities and separation of concerns is not an easy task in the area conceptual modeling in information system development. One of the fundamental problems is that most conventional conceptual modeling techniques deal with the collections of loosely linked meta-models, which are defined by the different types of diagrams. Typically, system development methods project interactive, behavioral and structural aspects of information systems conceptual representations into disparate views. Therefore, the semantic integrity of various architecture dimensions is difficult to achieve. In this paper we present semantically integrated conceptual modeling method. The advantage of this method is stability and flexibility of the diagrams to manage the constant changes of system requirements. This method provides possibility to visualize the interplay among structural, interactive and behavioral aspects. This is very important for the control of semantic integrity and to maintain a holistic representation, where external and internal views of service conceptualizations are visualized together. Such visualization is also important for separation of concerns which provides foundation for creation of modeling patterns. Modeling patterns are important for several reasons. First, they can be used for demonstration of the interplay of fundamental constructs that are used for system analysis and design. Secondly, modeling patterns are important for the evaluation of the expressive power of semantic modeling languages. It is demonstrated by case study examples that sequential, underlying, enclosing, overriding and overlaying interaction loops between actors provide the foundation for the composition of complex scenarios, which are spanning across organizational and technical system boundaries.

[1]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling , 1999, TODS.

[2]  M. Bunge Treatise on basic philosophy , 1974 .

[3]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Towards an Ontological Foundation for Services Science , 2009, FIS.

[4]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  Completing the Loops , 1995 .

[5]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Overlaying Conceptualizations for Managing Complexity of Scenario Specifications , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[6]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Conceptual Modeling and Integration of Static and Dynamic Aspects of Service Architectures , 2010, ONTOSE.

[7]  Remigijus Gustas Integrated Approach for Modelling of Semantic and Pragmatic Dependencies of Information Systems , 1998, ER.

[8]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Conceptual Modeling Method for Separation of Concerns and Integration of Structure and Behavior , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[9]  Remigijus Gustas Modeling Approach for Integration and Evolution of Information System Conceptualizations , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[10]  David Harel,et al.  Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems , 1987, Sci. Comput. Program..

[11]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Value-oriented design of service coordination processes: correctness and trust , 2005, SAC '05.

[12]  Jan Gustafsson,et al.  The Common Model of an Enterprise's Value Objects, Presented in Relevant Business Views , 2009, PoEM.

[13]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior , 2009, J. Database Manag..

[14]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Modeling Method for Bridging Pragmatic and Semantic Dimensions of Service Architectures , 2010, ISD.

[15]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  A method for data minimization in personal information sharing , 2013, ICCS 2013.

[16]  Prima Gustiené,et al.  Crafting Requirements for Mobile and Pervasive Emergency Response based on Privacy and Security by Design Principles , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Crisis Response Manag..

[17]  Remigijus Gustas A Look Behind Conceptual Modeling Constructs in Information System Analysis and Design , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

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

[19]  Michael Hammer,et al.  Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate , 1990 .

[20]  Roel Wieringa Operational Business-IT Alignment in Value Webs , 2008, UNISCON.

[21]  Capers Jones,et al.  Positive and Negative Innovations in Software Engineering , 2009, Int. J. Softw. Sci. Comput. Intell..

[22]  Martin Glinz,et al.  Problems and deficiencies of UML as a requirements specification language , 2000, Tenth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IWSSD-10 2000.

[23]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  The Agent-Object-Relationship metamodel: towards a unified view of state and behavior , 2003, Inf. Syst..

[24]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Business Modelling Is Not Process Modelling , 2000, ER.

[25]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Interactive Analysis of Agent-Goal Models in Enterprise Modeling , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[26]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Service-Oriented Foundation and Analysis Patterns for Conceptual Model-ling of Information Systems , 2007, ISD.

[27]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Requirements as Goals and Commitments Too , 2010, Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering.

[28]  Gustas Remigijus,et al.  Pragmatic-Driven Approach for Service-Oriented Analysis and Design , 2008 .