Back Room Front Room 2

More documents

Recommendations

Info

202 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS VI engineering. This would require establishment of a standard for common feature space, and a standard for representing feature models. In our next research steps we will study the common feature space for consistency and completeness and solution domain configurations (e.g. emerging new feature sets during synthesis and the relationship of solution domain configurations to design patterns). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Author wishes to gratefully acknowledge Profit Software Ltd. (Finland) and the Estonian Science Foundation for their support (Grant 4721). Author wishes to thank Riina Putting and Kert Uutsalu for discussions on the subject and many useful suggestions for improving this paper. REFERENCES Abbott, B., Bapty, T., Biegl, C., Karsai, G., Sztipanovits, J., 1993, Model-Based Software Synthesis, IEEE Software, May, 10 (3), 1993, pp.42-52. Bass, L., Clements, P. and Kazman, R., 1998, Software Architecture in Practice, Addison-Wesley. Batory, D. and O'Malley, S., 1992, The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 355- 398. Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U., W., 2000, Generative Programming, Methods, Tools, and Applications, Addison-Wesley. Honeywell, 1996, Domain-Specific Software Architectures, www.htc.Honeywell.com/projects/dssa Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., Peterson, A. S., 1990, Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, SEI CMU, CMU/SEI-90-TR-021 Kang, K. C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., and Huh., M., 1998, FORM: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering, Vol. 5, pp. 143-168. Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R. N., 1997, A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Architecture Description Languages, Proceedings of the Sixth European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC/FSE 97), Ed. by M. Jazayeri and H. Schauer, Springer Verlag, pp. 60-76. Mellor, S. J., 1995, Reuse through automation: Model- Based Development, Object Magazine, September 1995. OMG, 2001a, Model Driven Architecture, OMG 01-07- 01, ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ormsc OMG, 2001b, OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification Version 1.4, OMG 01-09-67, ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/formal Peterson, A. S., Stanley, J. L., 1994, Mapping a Domain Model and Architecture to a Generic Design, SEI CMU, CMU/SEI-94-TR-008 Raabe, A., 2002, Techniques of combination of metamodel extensions, Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Engineering, 8 (1), 2002, pp. 3- 17. Raabe, A., 2003, Software Engineering Environment for Business Information Systems, In Proceedings of ICEIS 2003, 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Angers, France, 23- 26 April, 2003, Volume 3, pp. 129-137. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., and Booch, G., 1999, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. SEI, 2002, Domain Engineering: A Model-Based Approach, www.sei.cmu.edu/domain-engineering Simos, M., Creps, D., Klinger, C., Levine, L., and Allemang, D., 1996, Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0, Technical Report for STARS, STARS-VC-A025/001/00, June 14, 1996. Singh, I., Stearns, B., Johnson, M. and the Enterprise Team, 2002, Designing Enterprise Applications with the J2EE Platform, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley. Shaw, M., Garlan, D., 1996, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Prentice- Hall. Weiss, D., 1996, Family-Oriented Abstraction, Specification, and Translation The FAST Process, Keynote talk at Computer Assurance Conference (COMPASS), 19 June 1996, www.research.avayalabs.com/user/weiss/pubs/compas s96.ps
TOWARDS A META MODEL FOR DESCRIBING COMMUNICATION How to address interoperability on a pragmatic level Boriana Rukanova, Kees van Slooten, Robert A. Stegwee School of Business, Public Administration and Technology, University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands Email: {b.d.rukanova, c.vanslooten, r.a.stegwee}@utwente.nl Keywords: business information systems, interoperability, pragmatics, standard Abstract: The developments in the ICT led companies to strive to make parts of the business transaction electronic and raised again the issue of interoperability. Although interoperability between computer systems has been widely addressed in literature, the concept of interoperability between organizations is still to a large extent unexplored. Standards are claimed to help achieving interoperability. However, experience with the implementation of EDI standards shows that many EDI implementation projects led to technical solutions with unclear business benefits. New standards are currently being developed, however their implementation can also lead again to purely technical solution, if the social context is not taken sufficiently into account. In this paper we address the problem on how to identify interoperability problems on a pragmatic level that can occur between organizations that want to carry out business transactions electronically. We also point out that, in order to identify interoperability problems on a pragmatic level, it is necessary to capture the communication requirements of the business parties and to evaluate to what extent a standard is capable to meet these requirements. To perform that evaluation we develop a meta model for describing communication. The meta model is based on theory of speech-act and communicative actions. The use of the meta model to identify interoperability problems on a pragmatic level is illustrated with an example. 1 INTRODUCTION The developments in the area of ICT made possible disparate information systems to exchange data electronically. This raised the question of how to achieve interoperability. The issue of interoperability between software systems has already been widely addressed (Goh et al., 1999; Heiler, 1995; Wegner, 1996). Further, it is expected that the use of standards can help in resolving the interoperability problems. However, experience with the implementation of EDI standards shows that often the result is a technical interoperability between software systems with unclear business benefit (Covington, 1997; Huang, 1998). Other standards are currently being developed. Examples are RosettaNet, and HL7. However, there is a danger that an implementation of such a standard could lead again only to a technical solution, rather than improving the way of doing business. This means that more than technical interoperability between computer systems is needed, but rather interoperability between organizations (business I. Seruca et al. (eds.), Enterprise Information Systems VI, © 2006 S pringer. Printed in the Netherlands. 203 203–210. information systems) is to be achieved (Stegwee & Rukanova, 2004). To achieve interoperability between organizations, it is important to realize first, that an organization is a combination of people and technology. Second, each organization operates in its own context. Thus, the organizations need to define a shared communication context in order to enter into business transactions together (Stamper, 1996; Vermeer, 2000). If the business parties decide to use computers to perform parts of the business transaction electronically, then the relevant shared context needs to be made explicit, formalized and embedded in the computer systems. In case where standards are used to formalize the relevant shared context, a standard needs to be evaluated to what extent it is capable to cover the relevant shared context (Rukanova et al., 2003a). This check is important to indicate where interoperability problems might arise. One possibility to make the comparison between the requirements of the communication context and the
Page 1 and 2:
www.dbeBooks.com - An Ebook Library
Page 3 and 4:
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this
Page 5 and 6:
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 - DATAB
Page 7 and 8:
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS A WIRELESS A
Page 9 and 10:
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE Honorary Presi
Page 11 and 12:
Hung, P. (AUSTRALIA) Jahankhani, H.
Page 13 and 14:
Invited Papers
Page 15 and 16:
2 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS VI
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
10 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS V
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
EVOLUTIONARY PROJECT MANAGEMENT: MU
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
MANAGING COMPLEXITY OF ENTERPRISE I
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
ASSESSING EFFORT PREDICTION MODELS
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
ORGANIZATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CR
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
ASAP Processes W Project Kickoff A
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
since it means changing the relevan
Page 85 and 86:
ACME-DB: AN ADAPTIVE CACHING MECHAN
Page 87 and 88:
ACME-DB: AN ADAPTIVE CACHING MECHAN
Page 89 and 90:
Hit Rate (%) ACME-DB: AN ADAPTIVE C
Page 91 and 92:
5.3.6 Effect on all Policies by Int
Page 93 and 94:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to t
Page 95 and 96:
This paper describes the data sampl
Page 97 and 98:
The major limit A of the operation
Page 99 and 100:
RELATIONAL SAMPLING FOR DATA QUALIT
Page 101 and 102:
TOWARDS DESIGN RATIONALES OF SOFTWA
Page 103 and 104:
((Brown et al., 1998), pp. 159-190,
Page 105 and 106:
sive data filtering, presentation (
Page 107 and 108:
• implementation changes in servi
Page 109 and 110:
MEMORY MANAGEMENT FOR LARGE SCALE D
Page 111 and 112:
Data Rate [bytes/sec] 1600000 14000
Page 113 and 114:
E.g., DV Camcorder Camera Packets (
Page 115 and 116:
Procedure CheckOptimal (n rs 1 ...n
Page 117 and 118:
MEMORY MANAGEMENT FOR LARGE SCALE D
Page 119 and 120:
PART 2 Artificial Intelligence and
Page 121 and 122:
110 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
DYNAMIC MULTI-AGENT BASED VARIETY F
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162: 150 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Page 169 and 170: AN EXPERIENCE IN MANAGEMENT OF IMPR
Page 179 and 180: ANALYSIS AND RE-ENGINEERING OF WEB
Page 181 and 182: Module p0 Customer Itinerary Send I
Page 183 and 184: departments: the marketing dept. se
Page 185 and 186: • An acyclic module M is usable,
Page 187 and 188: BALANCING STAKEHOLDER’S PREFERENC
Page 189 and 190: The scenarios will provide an abstr
Page 191 and 192: BALANCING STAKEHOLDER'S PREFERENCES
Page 193 and 194: BALANCING STAKEHOLDER'S PREFERENCES
Page 195 and 196: A POLYMORPHIC CONTEXT FRAME TO SUPP
Page 197 and 198: A POLYMORPHIC CONTE XT FRAME TO SUP
Page 203 and 204: FEATURE MATCHING IN MODEL-BASED SOF
Page 205 and 206: combination of solution domains - a
Page 207 and 208: • features for all the concepts:
Page 209 and 210: Existence In both steps it is possi
Page 211: matching strategies are maximal, mi
Page 215 and 216: elementary message (ae-message) can
Page 217 and 218: problems on a pragmatic level, whic
Page 219 and 220: TOWARDS A META MODEL FOR DESCRIBING
Page 221 and 222: INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS USING A
Page 223 and 224: INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS USING A
Page 225 and 226: (k� 1) (k) (k�1) (k) p � w
Page 227 and 228: Table 5: Performance Comparison of
Page 229 and 230: A USER-CENTERED METHODOLOGY TO GENE
Page 231 and 232: carries out the second phase of the
Page 233 and 234: 1 1 1 1 2 PROCESS STORE ENTITY EDGE
Page 235 and 236: constraints rules. KOGGE (Ebert et
Page 237 and 238: PART 4 Software Agents and Internet
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
CABA 2 L A BLISS PREDICTIVE COMPOSI
Page 287 and 288:
y disables evidencing severe mental
Page 289 and 290:
Figure 4: Symbols emission in DAR-H
Page 291 and 292:
they evidence a generalization erro
Page 293 and 294:
A METHODOLOGY FOR INTERFACE DESIGN
Page 295 and 296:
and mobility loss coupled with redu
Page 297 and 298:
Tradeoff: The default input is poss
Page 299 and 300:
Sessions on the VABS which are held
Page 301 and 302:
A CONTACT RECOMMENDER SYSTEM FOR A
Page 303 and 304:
A CONTACT RECOMMENDER SYSTEM FOR A
Page 305 and 306:
- "Going to the sources". The user
Page 307 and 308:
Here are the matrix W and P for our
Page 309 and 310:
EMOTION SYNTHESIS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRO
Page 311 and 312:
theme turns out to be surprisingly
Page 313 and 314:
6 FROM FEATURES TO SYMBOLS 6.1 Face
Page 315 and 316:
sions are described by different em
Page 317 and 318:
Electronic Imaging 2000 Conference
Page 319 and 320:
to the accessibility problem for th
Page 321 and 322:
Figure 3: Hierarchical View of the
Page 323 and 324:
4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK On th
Page 325 and 326:
PERSONALISED RESOURCE DISCOVERY SEA
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
profile, the user defines his curre
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Abdelkafi, N. .....................
show all

Back Room Front Room 2

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?