Advertisement

Improving the Reuse Possibilities of the Behavioral Aspects of Object-Oriented Domain Models

  • Monique Snoeck
  • Geert Poels
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)

Abstract

Reuse of domain models is often limited to the reuse of the structural aspects of the domain (e.g. by means of generic data models). In object-oriented models, reuse of dynamic aspects is achieved by reusing the methods of domain classes. Because in the object-oriented approach any behavior is at-tached to a class, it is impossible to reuse behavior without at the same time re-using the class. In addition, because of the message passing paradigm, object interaction must be specified as a method attached to one class which is invoked by another class. In this way object interaction is hidden in the behavioral as-pects of classes. This makes object interaction schemas difficult to reuse and customize. The focus of this paper is on improving the reuse of object-oriented domain models. This is achieved by centering the behavioral aspects around the concept of business events.

Keywords

Domain Model Event Type Message Passing Behavioral Aspect Business Rule 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Baeten, J.C.M.: Procesalgebra: een formalisme voor parallelle, communicerende proces-sen.Kluwer programmatuurkunde, Kluwer Deventer (1986)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Castano, S., De Antonellis, V.: The F3Reuse Environment for Requirements Engineering.ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes 19 (1994) 62–65Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Castano, S., De Antonellis, V., Pernici, B.: Building Reusable Components in the Public Administration Domain. In: Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Symposium Software Reusability (SSR’95). Seattle (1995) 81–87Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cook, S., Daniels, J.: Designing object systems: object-oriented modeling with Syntropy.Prentice Hall (1994)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Dedene, G., Snoeck, M.: Formal deadlock elimination in an object oriented conceptual schema. Data and Knowledge Eng. 15 (1995) 1–30Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, components, and frameworks with UML: the cataly-sis approach. Addison-Wesley (1998)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Fowler, M.: Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models. Addison-Wesley (1997)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hay, D.C.: Data Model Patterns: Conventions of Thought. Dorset House Publishers New York (1996)Google Scholar
  9. [9] Hoare, C. A. R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall (1985)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Jackson, M.A.: System Development. Prentice Hall (1983)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Jacobson, I. et al.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering, A use Case Driven Approach.Addison-Wesley (1992)Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lung, C.-H., Urban, J.E.: An Approach to the Classification of Domain Models in Support of Analogical Reuse. In: Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Symposium Software Reusability (SSR’95).Seattle (1995) 169–178Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Maiden, N.A., Sutcliffe, A.G.: Exploiting Reusable Specifications Through Analogy.Communications of the ACM 35 (1992) 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Mili, H., Mili, F., Mili, A.: Reusing Software: Issues and Research Directions. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 21 (1995) 528–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Milner R.: A calculus of communicating systems. Springer Berlin, Lecture Notes in Com-puter Science(1980)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Mineau, G.W., Godin, R.: Automatic structuring of knowledge bases by conceptual clus-tering.IEEE Trans. Data and Knowledge Eng. 7 (1995) 824–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Nellborn, C.: Business and Systems Development: Opportunities for an Integrated Way-of-Working. In: Nilsson, A.G., Tolis, C., Nellborn, C. (eds.): Perspectives on Domain mod-eling:understanding and Changing Organisations. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Poels, G., Viaene, S., Dedene, G.: Distance Measures for Information System Reengineering. In: Proc. 12th Int’l Conf. Advanced Systems Eng. (CAiSE*00). Stockholm (2000) 387–400Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Purao, S., Storey, V.C.: Intelligent Support for Retrieval and Synthesis of Patterns for Object-Oriented Design. In: Proc. 16th Int’l Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER’97). Los An-geles (1997) 30–42Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Robertson, S.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Robinson, K., Berrisford, G.: Object-oriented SSADM. Prentice Hall (1994)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Snoeck, M., Dedene, G.: Existence Dependency: the key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioral aspects of object types. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24 (1998) 233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Snoeck, M., Dedene, G., Verhelst, M., Depuydt, A.: Object-oriented Enterprise Modeling with MERODE. University Press Leuven (1999)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Snoeck, M., Poelmans, S., Dedene, G., A Layered Software Specification Architecture. In:Proc. 19th Int’l Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER2000). Salt Lake City (2000)Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Wirfs-Brock, R., Johnson, R.E.: Surveying current research in OO design. Communications of the ACM 33 (1990) 105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monique Snoeck
    • 1
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.MIS Group, Dept. Applied Economic SciencesK.U. LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations