A Process-Oriented Approach to Software Component Definition

  • Florian Matthes
  • Holm Wegner
  • Patrick Hupe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1626)


Commercial software component models are frequently based on object-oriented concepts and terminology with appropriate binding, persistence and distribution support. In this paper, we argue that a process-oriented view on cooperating software components based on the concepts and terminology of a language/action perspective on cooperative work provides a more suitable foundation for the analysis, design and implementation of software components in business applications.

We first explain the relationship between data-, object- and process-oriented component modeling and then illustrate our process-oriented approach to component definition using three case studies from projects with German software companies.

We also report on our experience gained in developing a class framework and a set of tools to assist in the systematic process-oriented development of business application components. This part of the paper also clarifies that a process-oriented perspective fits well with today’s object-oriented language and system models.


Mobile Agent Software Component Shopping Cart Execution Context Internet Shop 
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.


  1. [1]
    J. Austin. How to do things with words. Technical report, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Giorgio De Michelis, Eric Dubois, Matthias Jarke, Florian Matthes, John Mylopoulos, Mike Papazoglou, Klaus Pohl, Joachim Schmidt, Carson Woo, and Eric Yu. Cooperative information systems: A manifesto. In Mike P. Papazoglou and Gunther Schlageter, editors, Cooperative Information System: Trends and Directions. Academic Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Giorgio De Michelis, Eric Dubois, Matthias Jarke, Florian Matthes, John Mylopoulos, Joachim W. Schmidt, Carson Woo, and Eric Yu. A three-faceted view of information systems. Communications of the ACM, 41(12):64–70, December 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Flores, M. Graves, B. Hartfield, and T. Winograd. Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2):153–172, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Patrick Hupe. Ein Typsystem zur Analyse dialogorientierter Workflows in kooperativen Informationssystemen. Studienarbeit, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Germany, November 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Nico Johannisson. Eine Umgebung für mobile Agenten: Agentenbasierte verteilte Datenbanken am Beispiel der Kopplung autonomer ”Internet Web Site Profiler”. Diplomarbeit, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Germany, April 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Mathiske, F. Matthes, and J.W. Schmidt. On migrating threads. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 8(2):167–191, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Matthes. Business conversations: A high-level system model for agent coordination. In Database Programming Languages: Proceeding of the 6th International workshop; proceedings / DBPL-6, Estes Park, Colorado, USA, August 18 — 20, 1997. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    F. Matthes and J.W. Schmidt. Persistent threads. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB, pages 403–414, Santiago, Chile, September 1994. (An extended version of this text appeared as [MaSc94b]).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Florian Matthes. Mobile processes in cooperative information systems. In Proceedings STJA’97 (Smalltalk und Java in Industrie und Ausbildung), Erfurt, Germany, September 1997. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Volker Ripp. Verbesserung der Lokalität und Wiederverwendbarkeit von Geschäftsprozeβspezifikationen: Probleme und Lösungsansätze am Beispiel kundenorientierter Hotelgeschäftsprozesse. Diplomarbeit, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Germany, March 1998.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Searle. Speech acts. Technical report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Stonebraker, L.A. Rowe, B. Lindsay, J. Gray, M. Carey, M. Brodie, and P. Bernstein. Third-generation data base system manifesto. ACM SIGMOD Record, 19, September 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Holm Wegner. Objektorientierter Entwurf und Realisierung eines Agentensystems für kooperative Internet-Informationssysteme. Diplomarbeit, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Germany, May 1998.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    T.A. Winograd. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Technical Report No. STAN-CS-87-1158, Stanford University, May 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Matthes
    • 1
  • Holm Wegner
    • 1
  • Patrick Hupe
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Systems Institute (STS)Technical UniversityHamburg-HarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations