Advertisement

Extending Model-Driven Development Process with Causal Modeling Approach

  • Saulius GudasEmail author
  • Andrius Valatavičius
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 869)

Abstract

The model-driven development is most promising methodology for cyber-social systems (CSS), cyber-enterprise systems (CES), cyber-physical systems (CPS), and some other types of complex systems. Causality is an important concept in modeling; it helps to reveal the properties of the domain hidden from the outside observer. Great results of CPS engineering based on the perceived causality of specific domain—physical system. The subject domain of the CES as well as of CSS is a complex system type named “an enterprise”. The aim of the article is to enhance a model-based development (MDD) process with a causal modeling approach. The causal modeling aims to reveal the causality inherent to the specific domain type and to represent this deep knowledge on CIM layer. To do this, you need to add a new layer of MDA—a layer of domain knowledge discovery. Traditional MDA/MDD process use the external observation-based domain modeling on CIM layer. Such models assigned to empirical as they based on the notations that do not include causal dependencies, inherent to the domain type. From the causal modeling viewpoint, an enterprise considered to be a self-managed system driven by the internal needs. The specific need creates a particular causal dependence of activities—a management functional dependence (MFD). Concept of the MFD denotes some meaningful collaboration of activities—the causal interactions required by the definite internal need. The first step is conceptualization of the perceived domain causality on CIM layer. A top level conceptual causal model of MFD is defined as a management transaction (MT). The next step is the detailed MT modeling when an elementary control cycle (EMC) is created for each MT. EMC reveals the internal structure of MT and goal-driven interactions between MT internal elements: a workflow of data/knowledge transformations. The results of this study help to better understand that the content of the CIM layer should be aligned with the domain causality as close as reasonable. The main contribution is the extended MDA scheme with a new layer of the domain knowledge discovery and the causal knowledge discovery (CKD) technique tailored for enterprise domain. Technique uses twofold decomposition of management transaction: a control view-based and self-managing view based. The outcome of technique is hierarchy of management transactions and their internal components: lower level management functions and processes, goals, knowledge and information flows. Causal knowledge discovery technique is illustrated using the study programme renewal domain.

Keywords

Causality MDA Enterprise domain Causal model Management transaction Knowledge discovery 

References

  1. Bondy A, Murty USR (2008) Graph theory. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunge M (2011) Causality and modern science, 3rd revised edn. Courier Corporation, DOVER Publications, Inc., MineolaGoogle Scholar
  3. Conant RC, Ross Ashby W (1970) Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. Int J Syst Sci 89–97Google Scholar
  4. Deming WE (1993) The new economics for industry, government and education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz JLG (2003) The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations. Data Knowl Eng 47(3):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz JLG (2006) The deep structure of business processes. Commun ACM 49(5):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DoD (2009) Department of Defense, Instruction 5000.61, M&S VV&A. www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500061p.pdf
  8. Falkenberg ED et al (1996) FRISCO: a framework of information system concepts. The IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO, Dec 1996Google Scholar
  9. Francis BA, Wonham WM (1976) The internal model principle of control theory. Automatica 12(5):457–465MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frosini BV (2006) Causality and causal models: a conceptual perspective. Int Stat Rev 74(3):305–334Google Scholar
  11. Georgakopoulos D, Hornick M, Sheth A (1995) An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure. In: Distributed and parallel databases, vol 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 119–153Google Scholar
  12. Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gudas S (2012a) Foundations of the information systems’ engineering theory. Vilnius University Press, VilniusGoogle Scholar
  14. Gudas S (2012b) Knowledge-based enterprise framework: a management control view. New research on knowledge management models and method. http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-research-on-knowledge-management-models-and-methods/knowledge-based-enterprise-framework-a-management-control-view
  15. Gudas S, Lopata A (2016) Towards internal modeling of the information systems application domain. Informatica 27(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gudas S et al (2005) Approach to enterprise modeling for information systems engineering. Informatics 16(2):175–192Google Scholar
  17. Gudas S, Tekutov J, Butleris R, Denisovas V (2019) Modelling subject domain causality for learning content renewal. Informatica 30(3):455–480Google Scholar
  18. Halpern JY (2016) Sufficient conditions for causality to be transitive. Philos Sci 83(2):213–226MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harmon P (2010) The scope and evaluation of business process management. In: von Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) International handbooks on information systems, handbook on business process management, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heylighen F, Joslyn C. (2001) Cybernetics, and second-order cybernetics. In: Meyers RA (ed) Encyclopedia of physical science & technology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New York. Accessed 02 Apr 2019. http://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf
  21. ISO 15704:2000 Industrial automation systems—requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologiesGoogle Scholar
  22. Kephart JO, Chess DM (2003). The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36(1):41–50Google Scholar
  23. Khoo C et al (2002) The many facets of the cause-effect relation. In: Green R, Bean CA, Myaeng SH (eds) The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleppe A et al (2003) MDA explained, the model-driven architecture: practice and promise. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S (2012) Kac-Moody groups, their flag varieties, and representation theory. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis D (1973) Causation. J Phil 70(17). Seventieth annual meeting of the american philosophical association eastern division, 11 Oct 1973, pp 556–567Google Scholar
  27. Medina-Mora R, Winograd T, Flores R, Flores F (1992) The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. In: CSCW 92 Proceedings, pp 281–288Google Scholar
  28. OMG (2019) Business modeling category—specifications associated. https://www.omg.org/spec/category/business-modeling
  29. Osis J (2004) Software development with topological model in the framework of MDA. In: Proceedings of the 9th CaiSE/IFIP8.1/EUNO international workshop on evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and design (EMMSAD’2004) in connection with the CaiSE’2004, 1, Riga, Latvia: RTU, pp 211–220Google Scholar
  30. Osis J, Asnina E (2011) Model-driven domain analysis and software development: architectures and functions. IGI Global, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  31. Osis J, Donins U (2017) Topological UML modeling: an improved approach for domain modeling and software development. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Papazoglou MP (2003) Web services and business transactions (2003). In: World wide web: internet and web information systems, vol 6. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 49–91Google Scholar
  33. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Rummler GA (2010) White space revisited: creating value through process. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott B (1996) Second-order cybernetics as cognitive methodology. Syst Res 13(3):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SEP (2018) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causal-models/#CausDiscInte. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  37. Techopedia (2019) Transaction. https://www.techopedia.com/definition/16455/transaction. Accessed 04 Apr 2019
  38. Tekutov J et al (2012) The refinement of study program content based on a problem domain model. Transform Bus Econ 11(1(25)):199–212Google Scholar
  39. Trask B, Roman A (2009) Introduction to model driven development with examples using eclipse frameworks. In: ACM conference on object-oriented programming, systems, languages and applications, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  40. Valatavičius A, Gudas S (2017) Toward the deep, knowledge-based interoperability of applications. Inf Sci 79:83–113Google Scholar
  41. von Foerster et al (1953) The Macy conference proceedings noteGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang L et al (2015) Research on fault diagnosis system with causal relationship in equipment technical manual’s deep knowledge. In: Yang (ed) Advances in future manufacturing engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 28–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Data Science and Digital TechnologiesVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations