Advertisement

Comparison of four Method Engineering languages

  • F. Harmsen
  • M. Saeki
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

Currently, several languages to represent and manipulate parts of IS engineering methods, techniques and tools are being used. These so-called Method Engineering languages can be classified into four categories: product-oriented, object-oriented, process-and decision-oriented, and hybrid. In this paper representatives of each of these categories are being reviewed. Meta-models of the languages are given, and each description is illustrated by an example specification. Focus of comparison is expressive power. The Method Engineering languages are compared on the basis of a number of requirements, which are deduced from the notions used in the Method Engineering domain.

Keywords

Method specification languages Comparisons 

References

  1. Benali, K., Boudjlida, N., Charoy, F., Derniame, J.-C., Godart, C., Griffiths, Ph., Gruhn, V., Jamart, Ph., Oldfield, D. and Oquendo, F. (1989) Presentation of the ALF project. Proceedings of the International Conference on System Development Environments and Factories, Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Brinkkemper, S. (1991) Formalisation of Information Systems Modelling, Dissertation University of Nijmegen, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Duke, R., King, P., Rose, R. and Smith, G. (1991) The Object-Z Specification Language, Technical Report 91–1, Software Verification Centre, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  4. Emmerich, W., Junkermann, G. and Schäfer, W. (1991) MERLIN: knowledge based process modelling. First European Workshop on Software Process Modelling, Milan.Google Scholar
  5. Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper S. and Oei H. (1994) Situational Method Engineering for Information System Projects. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. 011e and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 169–194.Google Scholar
  6. Harmsen, F., and Brinkkemper, S. (1995a) Description and Manipulation of Method Fragments for Situational Method Assembly. Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Software Projects, Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Harmsen, F. and Brinkkemper S. (1995b) Design and Implementation of a Method Base Management System for a Situational CASE Environment. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’95), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 430–438.Google Scholar
  8. Heym, M. and Osterle, H. (1992) A reference model of information systems development. The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (Eds. K.E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen and J. I. DeGross), Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 215–240.Google Scholar
  9. Hofstede, A.H.M. ter (1993), Information modelling in data intensive domains, dissertation University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Hong, S., van den Goor, G., and Brinkkemper, S. (1993), A Comparison of Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Methodologies. Proceedings of the 26th Hawaiian Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-26), IEEE Computer Science Press.Google Scholar
  11. Iivari, J. (1994) Object-oriented information systems analysis: A comparison of six object-oriented analysis methods. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. 011e and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 85110.Google Scholar
  12. Katayama, T. (1989) A hierarchical and functional software process description and its enaction. Proceedings of the 11th Int. Conf on Software Engineering. pp.-343–352.Google Scholar
  13. Kelly S., Lyytinen, K. and Rossi, M. (1996) MetaEdit+ A Fully Configurable Multi-User and multi-Tool CASE and CAME Environment. Proceedings of the CAiSE’96 conference, 2024 May, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  14. Koskinen, M. (1996) Designing Multiple Process Modelling Languages for Flexible, Enactable Process Models in a MetaCASE Environment, Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Next Generation CASE Tools (NGCT’96), Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar, K. and Welke, R.J. (1992) Methodology Engineering: A proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Engineering. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development (Eds. W.W. Cotterman and J.A Senn ), John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, J. (1990) Information Engineering, Book II - Planning and Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  17. Marttiin, P., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P. and Lyytinen, K. (1993) A Comparative Review of CASE Shells: a preliminary framework and research outcomes. Information and Management, 25, pp. 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M. (1990) Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8, 4, pp. 325–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oei, J.L.H. and E.D. Falkenberg (1994) Harmonisation of Information System Modelling and Specification Techniques. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. Olle and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 151168.Google Scholar
  20. Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Tully, C.J. (Eds.) (1983) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Olle, T.W., Hagelstein, J., MacDonald, I.G., Rolland, C., Sol, H.G., Van Assche, F.J.M. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A (1991) Information Systems Methodologies: A framework for understanding. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England.Google Scholar
  22. Saeki, M., Kaneko, T., and Sakamoto, M. (1991) A Method for Software Process Modeling and Description using LOTOS. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Software Process (Ed. M. Dowson), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
  23. Saeki, M., and Wen-yin, K. (1994) Specifying Software Specification and Design Methods. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper and T. Wasserman), LNCS#811, Springer-Verlag, pp. 353–366.Google Scholar
  24. Smolander, K. (1992) OPRR–A Model for Methodology Modeling. Next Generation of CASE Tools (Eds. K. Lyytinen and V.-P. Tahvanainen), Studies in Computer and Communication Systems, IOS press, pp. 224–239.Google Scholar
  25. Slooten, K. van, and Brinkkemper S. (1993) A Method Engineering Approach to Information Systems Development. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems Development Process (Eds. N. Prakash, C. Rolland and P. Pernici ), Como, pp. 167–186.Google Scholar
  26. Song, X., and Osterweil, L.J. (1992), Towards objective, systematic design-method comparison. IEEE Software, 34, 5, May, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
  27. Sorenson, P.G., Tremblay, J-P. and McAllister, A.J. (1988) The Metaview system for many specification environments. IEEE Software, 30, 3, March, pp. 30–38.Google Scholar
  28. Sowa, J.F., and Zachman, J.A. (1992) Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31, 3, pp. 590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Venable, J. (1993) CoCoA: A Conceptual Data Modelling Approach for Complex Problem Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghampton.Google Scholar
  30. Verhoef, T.F. and Ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (1995) Feasibility of Flexible Information Modelling Support. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. J. Iivari, K. Lyytinen and M. Rossi), LNCS #932, Springer-Verlag, pp. 168–185.Google Scholar
  31. Wijers, G. and Dort, H. van (1990) Experiences with the use of CASE tools in the Netherlands. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. B. Steinholz, A. Salvberg and L. Bergman), LNCS#436, Springer-Verlag, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  32. Wijers, G. (1991) Modelling Support in Information Systems Development. Ph.D. dissertation, Thesis publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Harmsen
    • 1
  • M. Saeki
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science IS Design Methodology GroupUniversity of TwenteEnschedeNetherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTokyo Institute of TechnologyMeguro-ku, Tokyo, 152Japan

Personalised recommendations