Advertisement

Security and Consistency of IT and Business Models at Credit Suisse Realized by Graph Constraints, Transformation and Integration Using Algebraic Graph Theory

  • Christoph Brandt
  • Frank Hermann
  • Thomas Engel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 29)

Abstract

This paper shows typical security and consistency challenges regarding the models of the business and the IT universe of the dynamic service-, process- and rule-based environment at Credit Suisse. It presents a theoretical solution for enterprise engineering that is implementable, and fits smoothly with the daily needs and constraints of the people in the scenario. It further enables decentralized modeling based on cognitive and mathematical or logical concepts. Normative aspects of the models are analyzed by graph constraint checks, while consistency is checked and ensured by model integration and transformation. To cope with theoretical and practical necessities, the presented solution is kept sound and usable as well as extensible and scalable. All techniques are based on one theoretical framework: algebraic graph theory. Therefore, the techniques are compatible with each other.

Keywords

enterprise engineering services processes rules business models IT models verification tests norms consistency algebraic graph theory model transformation integration graph constraints 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arbab, F.: Abstract Behavior Types: A Foundation Model for Components and Their Composition. Science of Computer Programming 55, 3–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Software and Systems Modeling 4, 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandt, C., Engel, T., Hermann, F., Adamek, J.: Security and Consistency of IT and Business Models at Credit Suisse realized by Graph Constraints, Transformation and Integration using Algebraic Graph Theory (Long Version). Technical report, Technische Universität Berlin,Fakultät IV (to appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornelius, F., Hußmann, H., Löwe, M.: The Korso Case Study for Software Engineering with Formal Methods: A Medical Information System. Technical Report 94–5, FB Informatik, TU Berlin (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information Preserving Bidirectional Model Transformations. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Hermann, F.: From Model Transformation to Model Integration based on the Algebraic Approach to Triple Graph Grammars. In: Ermel, C., de Lara, J., Heckel, R. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GT-VMT 2008), vol. 10. EC-EASST (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrig, H., Ermel, C., Hermann, F.: On the Relationship of Model Transformations Based on Triple and Plain Graph Grammars (Long Version). Technical Report 2008/05, Technische Universität Berlin, Fakultät IV (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehrig, H., König, B.: Deriving Bisimulation Congruences in the DPO Approach to Graph Rewriting with Borrowed Contexts. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16(6), 1133–1163 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenfield, J.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, p. 304. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groote, J.F., Reniers, M.: Modelling and Analysis of Communicating Systems (to appear)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le, T.V., Le, T.U.V., Van, L.T.: Techniques of PROLOG Programming with Implementation of Logical Negation and Quantified Goals. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. Meta-Object Facility (MOF), Version 2.0 (2006), http://www.omg.org/
  14. 14.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure – Version 2.1.2 (2007), http://www.omg.org/.
  15. 15.
    OMG. Catalog of OMG Business Strategy, Business Rules and Business Process Management Specifications (2009), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/br_pm_spec_catalog.htm
  16. 16.
    OMG. Model driven Architecture (MDA) (2009), http://www.omg.org/mda
  17. 17.
    Pemmaraju, S., Skiena, S.: Computational Discrete Mathematics: Combinatorics and Graph Theory with Mathematica. The University of Iowa and SUNY at Stony Brook. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Tinhofer, G. (ed.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Brandt
    • 1
  • Frank Hermann
    • 2
  • Thomas Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.SECAN-LabUniversité du LuxembourgLuxembourg-KirchbergLuxembourg
  2. 2.Fakultät IV, Theoretische Informatik/Formale SpezifikationTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations