Advertisement

Ontology-Driven Unified Governance in Software Engineering: The PoolParty Case Study

  • Monika SolankiEmail author
  • Christian Mader
  • Helmut Nagy
  • Margot Mückstein
  • Mahek Hanfi
  • Robert David
  • Andreas Koller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10250)

Abstract

Collaborative software engineering environments have transformed the nature of workflows typically undertaken during the design of software artifacts. However, they do not provide the mechanism needed to integrate software requirements and implementation issues for unified governance in the engineering process. In this paper we present an ontology-driven approach that exploits the Design Intent Ontology (DIO) for aligning requirements specification with the issues raised during software development and software maintenance. Our methodology has been applied in an industrial setting for the PoolParty Thesaurus server. We integrate the requirements specified and issues raised by PoolParty customers and developers, and provide a graph search powered, unified governance dashboard implementation over the annotated and integrated datasets. Our evaluation shows an impressive 50% increase in efficiency when searching over datasets semantically annotated with DIO as compared to searching over Confluence and JIRA.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Prof. Jeremy Gibbons (University of Oxford) for his insightful comments on early drafts of the paper. The research presented in this paper has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644055, the ALIGNED project (www.aligned-project.eu).

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bani-Salameh, H., Jeffery, C.: Collaborative and social development environments: a literature review. Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol. 49(2), 89–103 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M., Knott, D.: Capturing design rationale. Comput. Aided Des. 41(3), 173–186 (2009). Computer Support for Conceptual DesignCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burge, J.E., Carroll, J.M., McCall, R., Mistrk, I.: Rationale-Based Software Engineering, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conklin, E.J., Yakemovic, K.C.B.: A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6(3), 357–391 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Medeiros, A.P., Schwabe, D., Feijó, B.: Kuaba Ontology: Design Rationale Representation and Reuse in Model-Based Designs. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 241–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11568322_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43(5–6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horner, J., Atwood, M.E.: Design rationale: the rationale and the barriers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, NordiCHI 2006, pp. 341–350. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J., Messrs, W., Dehlinger, H., Mann, T., Protzen, J.J.: Issues as elements of information systems. Technical report (1970)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuofie, E.J.: Radex: a rationale-based ontology for aerospace design explanation (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, J.: Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert 12(3), 78–85 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solanki, M.: DIO: a pattern for capturing the intents underlying designs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns (WOP 2015), vol. 1461. CEUR-WS.org (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tempich, C., Pinto, H.S., Sure, Y., Staab, S.: An argumentation ontology for DIstributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11431053_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, Y., Luo, X., Li, J., Buis, J.J.: A semantic representation model for design rationale of products. Adv. Eng. Inform. 27(1), 13–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Solanki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Mader
    • 2
  • Helmut Nagy
    • 3
  • Margot Mückstein
    • 3
  • Mahek Hanfi
    • 3
  • Robert David
    • 3
  • Andreas Koller
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Fraunhofer IAISBonnGermany
  3. 3.Semantic Web CompanyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations