Interactions, Transitions and Inference Rules in Semantically Integrated Conceptual Modelling

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.

[1]  Tom De Marco,et al.  Structured Analysis And System Specification , 2015 .

[2]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Enterprise ontology - theory and methodology , 2006 .

[3]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Meaningful modeling: what's the semantics of "semantics"? , 2004, Computer.

[4]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Aspect-oriented software development with use cases , 2005, Addison Wesley object technology series.

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

[6]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Requirements engineering: a roadmap , 2000, ICSE '00.

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

[8]  Geoff Cutts Structured system analysis and design method , 1991 .

[9]  Dov Dori,et al.  Object-process methodology - a holistic systems paradigm , 2013 .

[10]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  DEMO: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[12]  James E. Rumbaugh,et al.  Object-Oriented Modelling and Design , 1991 .

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

[14]  Marc M. Lankhorst,et al.  Enterprise Architecture at Work - Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 2nd Edition , 2005, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[15]  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.

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

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

[18]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  Modal Aspects of Object Types and Part-Whole Relations and the de re/de dicto Distinction , 2007, CAiSE.