Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology

Abstract The paper analyses and evaluates the OPEN Modelling Language (OML) in terms of the Bunge–Wand–Weber (BWW) model of information systems in order to: (1) Define the semantics of each relevant OML construct in terms of the kind of problem-domain phenomena they are intended to represent. (2) Inform further improvement of OML and similar object-oriented (OO) modelling languages by identifying OML-constructs which are ontologically overloaded, redundant or excessive and by identifying construct deficits in OML. (3) Investigate the ontological assumptions underlying OO modelling further. (4) Identify the multiple roles played by OML-constructs, some of which must simultaneously (a) support representation of the problem domain, (b) support developers and other stakeholders in establishing requirements and creating a software artifact, (c) support representation of that software artifact and (d) form a well-defined, compact and tightly integrated modelling language. (5) Provide general guidelines for defining OO and other modelling constructs in terms of the kind of problem-domain phenomena they are intended to represent.

[1]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Evaluation of Systems Analysis and Design Methods , 1989, ISCO.

[2]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[3]  Won Kim,et al.  Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications , 1989 .

[4]  Yair Wand,et al.  A Proposal for a Formal Model of Objects , 1989, Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications.

[5]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  The OPEN process specification , 1997 .

[6]  Michael A. Jackson,et al.  Software requirements and specifications - a lexicon of practice, principles and prejudices , 1995 .

[7]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  The OPEN toolbox of techniques , 1998 .

[8]  Peter Green,et al.  An ontological analysis of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in upper case tools , 1996 .

[9]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Viewing the OML as a variant of the UML , 1999 .

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

[11]  Matthias Jarke,et al.  DAIDA: an environment for evolving information systems , 1992, TOIS.

[12]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the deep structure of information systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[13]  Pete Sawyer,et al.  Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide , 1997 .

[14]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using objects for systems analysis , 1997, CACM.

[15]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  An Ontological Evaluation of the OML Metamodel , 2000, ISCO.

[16]  Franco Civello,et al.  Roles for composite objects in object-oriented analysis and design , 1993, OOPSLA '93.

[17]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  What is this thing called aggregation? , 1999, Proceedings Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. TOOLS 29 (Cat. No.PR00275).

[18]  Yanchun Zhang,et al.  An analytical evaluation of NIAM'S grammar for conceptual schema diagrams , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[19]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems , 1991 .