Development of Adaptable Information Systems in Tourism

  • Vlad Wietrzyk
Conference paper


An analysis of existing models and programming languages shows the main problem in requirement engineering: the egreement between a well-defined basic model and a convenient language. One major problem in traditional analysis, design and implementation is the amount of work needed when going from one model to another. This is especially the case in the transformation of the analysis model into the design model. The problem is that the two models have two logically different representations.

The QUELLE project builds on the object-oriented system development paradigm and extends this work in two directions. The first direction is concerned with the utilization of a commercial ODBMS as the underlying data management mechanism. The second direction is concerned with enhancing the paradigm with the explicit modelling of a problem situation providing decision-supporting environment at the application level.


Requirement Engineering Semantic Network Software Requirement Specification Software Development Methodology Integrate Decision Support System 
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] [Booch 86]
    G.Booch: Object-Oriented Development. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE-12, no. 2, p. 211, Feb. 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2] [Seidewitz87]
    E. Seidewitz, M. Stark: Towards a General Object-Oriented Software Development Methodology. ACM SIGAAda Ada Letters, vol. 7, no. 4,p. 54, July/Aug. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] [Wasserman 89]
    A.I. Wasserman, P.A. Pircher, R.J Muller: An Object-Oriented Structured Design Method for Code Generation. ACM SIG-Soft Software Eng. Notes, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 32, Jan. 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4] [Coad89]
    P.Coad, E. Yourdon: Object-Oriented Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5] [Dusink 89]
    L. Dusink & P. Hall: Software Re-use, Utrecht 1989, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6] [T. Biggerstaff & A. Perlis]
    T. Biggerstaff & A. J. Perlis: Software Reusability, ACM Press- Frontier Series, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [7] [B.Walraet 91]
    B. Walraet: A Discipline of Software Engineering, North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8] [Madsen88]
    O.L. Madsen, B. Moller-Pedersen: What object-oriented programming may be-and what it does not have to be. In: S.Gjessing, K. Nygaard (eds.): ECOOP’88’, Springer Verlag, Aug. 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9] [J. Hogger 1990 ]
    J. Hogger 1990 ] CH. J. Hogger. Essentials of Logic Programming, Claredon Press - Oxford, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10] [R. A. Kowalski & M. H. van Emden 76]
    R. A. Kowalski & M. H. van Emden: The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language, Journal of thr ACM 23, pp. 733–742, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. [11] [U. Nilsson & J. Maluszynski 1990 ]
    U. Nilsson & J. Maluszynski 1990 ] Ulf Nilsson & Jan Maluszynski: Logic, Programming and Prolog, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [12] [F. Lehmann 1992 ]
    F. Lehmann: Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, Pergamon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13] [J. S. Sowa 1983 ]
    J. F. Sowa: Conceptual Structures - Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [14] [K. Jensen & G. Rozenberg 1991 ]
    K. Jensen & G. Rozenberg: High-Level Petri Nets, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15] [B. W. Boehm 1981 ]
    B. W. Boehm: Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. [16] [J. Buben:.o 1986]
    J. Bubenko:Information System Methodologies - A Research View, in ‘Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice’, eds 011e, T. W., Sol, H.G., Verijn-Stuard, A.A., North-Holland.Google Scholar
  17. [17] [T. DeMarco 1978 ]
    T. DeMarco: Structured Analysis and System Specification, Yourdon Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. [18] [G. Verheijen & van Bekkum 1983 ]
    G. Verheijen & J. van Bekkum: NIAM - An Information Analysis Method, in 011e 1983.Google Scholar
  19. [19] [M. Jackson 1983 ]
    M. Jackson: System Development, Prentice-Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    I. MacDonald: Information Engineering- An improved, automatable methodology for designing data sharing systems, in 011e (1986), pp. 173–224.Google Scholar
  21. [21] [E. P. Morris 1985 ]
    E. P. Morris: Strengths and Weaknesses in Current Large Scale Data Processing Systems, Alvey/BCS SGES workshop, January 1985.Google Scholar
  22. [22] [T. W. O11e 1983]
    T. W. O11e. et al (eds), CRIS — Information System Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. [23] [R. Balzer 1983]
    R. Balzer & Cheatham: Software Technology in the 1990’s: Using a New Paradigm, Computer, November 1983, pp. 39–45.Google Scholar
  24. [24] [D. L. Parnas & P. C. Clements 1986 ]
    D. L. Parnas & P. C. Clements: A rational design process: How and why to fake it, IFFE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12, 251–257.Google Scholar
  25. [25] [R. Balzer, C. Green, and T. Cheatham 1990 ]
    R. Balzer, C. Green, and T. Cheatham: Software technology in the 1990s using a new paradigm IEEE Computer, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 39–45, November 1983.Google Scholar
  26. [26] [O11e, T.W. 1986]
    O11e, T.W: CRIS3 - Improving the Practice, North-Holland 1986.Google Scholar
  27. [27] [B. Adelson & E. Soloway 1985 ]
    B. Adelson & E. Soloway: The role of domain experience in software design, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, SE-11(11), 1351–1360.Google Scholar
  28. [28] [M. D. Lubars & M. T. Harandi]
    Addressing software reuse through knowledge-based design, in T.J. Biggerstaff & A. J. Perlis (eds), Software Reusability, ACM Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. [29] [D. P. Wood & W. G. Wood 1989 ]
    D. P. Wood & W. G. Wood: Comparative Evaluation of Four Specification Methods for Real-Time Technical Report CMU/SEI-89TR-36, Pittsburgh, Pa.: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, December 1989.Google Scholar
  30. [30] [A. Borgida, S. Greenspan, and J. Mylopoulos 1985]
    A. Borgida, S. Greenspan, and J. Mylopoulos. “Knowledge representation as the basis for requirements specifications,” IEEE Compt., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 82–91, April 1985.Google Scholar
  31. [31] [R.M. Burstall and J. Gouguen 1977]
    R.M. Burstall and J. Gouguen: “Putting theories together to make specifications,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Artificial Intell., Cambridge, MA, pp. 1045–1058, August 1977.Google Scholar
  32. [32] [S. Fickas 1986 ]
    S. Fickas: “A knowledge-based approach to specification acquisition and construction,” Technical Report 86–1, Computer Science Dept., University of Oregon, Eugene, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. [33] [Allen, J.F. 1984]
    Allen, J.F.: “Toward a General Theory of Action and Time,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 23, pp. 123–134, 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] [Y. De Kleer and B.C. Williams 198]
    Y. De Kleer and B.C. Williams: “Diagnosing multiple faults”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32, pp. 97–130, 1987.MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] [B. Chandrasekaran 1989 ]
    B. Chandrasekaran: A roundtable discussion - Present and Future directions: trends in Artificial Intelligence, OE Reports, SPIE, September, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vlad Wietrzyk
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations