A Viewpoint-Based Framework for Discussing the Use of Multiple Modelling Representations

  • Nigel Stanger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)


When modelling a real-world phenomenon, it can often be useful to have multiple descriptions of the phenomenon, each expressed using a different modelling approach or representation. Different representations such as entity-relationship modelling, data ow modelling and use case modelling allow analysts to describe different aspects of real- world phenomena, thus providing a more thorough understanding than if a single representation were used. Researchers working with multiple representations have approached the problem from different directions, resulting in a diverse and potentially confusing set of terminologies. In this paper is described a viewpoint-based framework for discussing the use of multiple modelling representations to describe real-world phenomena. This framework provides a consistent and integrated terminology for researchers working with multiple representations. An abstract notation is also defined for expressing concepts within the framework.


Multiple Representation Soft System Methodology Abstract Notation Software Development Environment Diagram Notation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Paolo Atzeni and Riccardo Torlone. Management of multiple models in an extensible database design tool. In P. Apers, M. Bouzeghoub, and G. Gardarin, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT’96), volume 1057 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 79–95, Avignon, France, March 25–29 1996. Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paolo Atzeni and Riccardo Torlone. MDM: A multiple-data-model tool for the management of heterogeneous database schemes. In Joan M. Peckman, editor, Proceedings of the SIGMOD 1997 International Conference on the Management of Data, pages 528–531, Tucson, Arizona, May 13–15 1997. Association for Computing Machinery, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.G.G. Cattell, Douglas K. Barry, Mark Berler, Jeff Eastman, David Jordan, Craig Russell, Olaf Schadow, Torsten Stanienda, and Fernando Velez. The Object Data Standard: ODMG 3.0. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.B. Checkland. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peter Pin-Shan Chen. The entity-relationship model-Toward a unifed view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1):9–36, 1976.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.F. Codd. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 1970.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peta Darke and Graeme Shanks. Viewpoint development for requirements defnition: Towards a conceptual framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS’95), pages 277–288, Perth, Australia, September 26–29 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peta Darke and Graeme Shanks. Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: A framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches. Requirements Engineering, 1:88–105, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steve M. Easterbrook. Elicitation of Requirements from Multiple Perspectives. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, University of London, London, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.C.W. Finkelstein, M. Goedicke, J. Kramer, and C. Niskier. View Point oriented software development: Methods and view points in requirements engineering. In J.A. Bergstra and L.M.G. Feijs, editors, Proceedings of the Second Meteor Workshop on Methods for Formal Specification, volume 490 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 29–54, Mierlo, The Netherlands, September 1989. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Gane and T. Sarson. Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice-Hall Software Series. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John C. Grundy. Multiple Textual and Graphical Views for Interactive Software Development Environments. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, June 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    John C. Grundy and John G. Hosking. Constructing integrated software development environments with MViews. International Journal of Applied Software Technology, 2(3/4):133–160, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Hsia, J. Samuel, J. Gao, D. Kung, Y. Toyoshima, and C. Chen. Formal approach to scenario analysis. IEEE Software, 11(2):33–41, March 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richard Hull and Roger King. Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.A. Jacobs and C.D. Marlin. Software process representation to support multiple views. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 5(4), December 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerald Kotonya and Ian Sommerville. Requirements engineering with viewpoints. Software Engineering Journal, 11(1):5–18, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Meyers. Difficulties in integrating multiview environments. IEEE Software, 8(1):49–57, January 1991.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Mullery. CORE-A method for controlled requirements specification. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 126–135, Munich, Germany, September 17–19 1979. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A.C.W. Finkelstein. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10):760–773, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification. Object Management Group, Inc., 1.3 edition, June 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richard T. Pascoe and John P. Penny. Constructing interfaces between (and within) geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9(3):275–291, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henry C. Smith. Database design: Composing fully normalized tables from a rigorous dependency diagram. Communications of the ACM, 28(8):826–838, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nigel Stanger. Modifications to Smith’s method for deriving normalised relations from a functional dependency diagram. Discussion Paper 99/23, Department of Information Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nigel Stanger. Using Multiple Representations Within a Viewpoint. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, November 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nigel Stanger. Translating descriptions of a viewpoint among different representations. Discussion Paper 2000/11, Department of Information Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, May 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nigel Stanger and Richard Pascoe. Environments for viewpoint representations. In Robert Galliers, Sven Carlsson, Claudia Loebbecke, Ciaran Murphy, Hans Hansen, and Ramon O’Callaghan, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS’97), volume I, pages 367–382, Cork, Ireland, June 19–21 1997. Cork PubliGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S.Y.W. Su and S.C. Fang. A neutral semantic representation for data model and schema translation. Technical report TR-93-023, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, July 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S.Y.W. Su, S.C. Fang, and H. Lam. An object-oriented rule-based approach to data model and schema translation. Technical report TR-92-015, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Tsichritzis and F. Lochovsky. Data Models. Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nigel Stanger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations