A Layered Software Specification Architecture

  • M. Snoeck
  • S. Poelmans
  • G. Dedene
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)


Separation of concerns is a determining factor of the quality of object- oriented software development. Done well, it can provide substantial benefits such as additive rather than invasive change and improved adaptability, customizability, and reuse. In this paper we propose a software architecture that integrates concepts from business process modeling with concepts of object- oriented systems development. The presented architecture is a layered one: the concepts are arranged in successive layers in such a way that each layer only uses concepts of its own layer or of layers below. The guiding principle in the design of this layered architecture is the separation of concerns. On the one hand workflow aspects are separated from functional support for tasks and on the other hand domain modeling concepts are separated from information system support. The concept of events (workflow events, information system events and business events) is used as bridging concept between the different layers.


Business Process Communicate Sequential Process Domain Object Functional Support Order Line 
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.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Procesalgebra, Kluwer programmatuurkunde, 1986Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., The unified modeling language user guide, Addi-son Wesley, 1999Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman, D. et al, Object-oriented development: The FUSION method, Prentice Hall, 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, S., Daniels, J., Designing object systems: object-oriented modeling with Syntropy, Prentice Hall, 1994Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dedene G. Snoeck M. Formal deadlock elimination in an object oriented conceptual schema, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 15 (1995) 1–30.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A. C. Wills, Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML, The Catalysis Approach, Addison-Wesley, 1999, 785 pp.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fowler, M., Analysis Patterns, Reusable Object Models, Addison Wesley Longman, 1997, 357 pp.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goebl, W., Improving productivity in building Dat-Oriened Information Systems-Why Object Frameworks are not enough, Proc. of the 1998 Int’l Conf. On Object-Oriented In-formation Systems, Paris, 9–11 September, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham I., Henderson-Sellers B., Younessi H., The Open Process Specification (Open Series), Addison Wesley, 1997, 336 pp.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoare C. A. R., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall International, Series in Computer Science, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson P. et al., Object-Oriented Software Engineering, A use Case Driven Approach, Addison Wesley, Rev. 4th pr., 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, M.A., System Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joosten, S., Werkstromen: een overzicht, in Informatie, jaargang 37, nr. 9, pp. 519–528.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kappel, G., P. Lang, S. Rausch-Schott, & W. Retschitzegger, Workflow management based on objects, rules and roles, In Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engi-neering, March 1995,18(1), pp. 11–18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maes, R., Dedene, G., Reframing the Zachman Information System Architecture Frame-work, Tinbergen Institute, discussion paper TI 96-32/2, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malone, T. W., Crowston, K. The Interdisciplinary Study of Co-ordination, In ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 94, pp.87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.,A calculus of communicating systems, Springer Berlin, Lecture Notes in Com-puter Science, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rational Software Corporation, The rational Unified Process,
  19. 19.
    Robinson, K., Berrisford, G., Object-oriented SSADM, Prentice Hall, 1994Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snoeck, M., Poels, G., Improving the Reuse Possibilities of the Behavioral Aspects of Object-Oriented Domain Models, In: Proc. 19th Int’l Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER2000). Salt Lake City (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snoeck M., Dedene G. Existence Dependency: The key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioral aspects of object types, IEEE Transactions on Software Engi-neering, Vol. 24, No. 24, April 1998, pp.233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snoeck M., Dedene G., Experiences with Object-Oriented Model-driven development, Proceedings of the STEP’97 conference, London, July 1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snoeck M., Dedene G., Verhelst M; Depuydt A.M., Object-oriented Enterprise Modeling with MERODE, Leuven University Press, 1999Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sowa J.F., Zachman J.A., Extending and formalizing the framework for information sys-tems architecture, IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 1992, 590–616.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaishnavi, V., Joosten, S. & B. Kuechhler, Representing Workflow Management systems with Smart Objects, 1997, 7 pp.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolber D., Reviving Functional Decomposition in Object-oriented Design, JOOP, October 1997, pp. 31–38Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zachman J.A., A framework for information systems architecture, IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 1987, 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Snoeck
    • 1
  • S. Poelmans
    • 1
  • G. Dedene
    • 1
  1. 1.Management Information Systems GroupKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuven

Personalised recommendations