Concern-Oriented and Ontology-Based Analysis of Information Systems



To manage the complexity of the development of an Information System (IS) a systematic partitioning of its models is needed. In particular, the system conceptual domain construction requires a structured approach. Our research on conceptual modelling in software engineering conducted us to propose a concern-oriented analysis approach aimed to construct the domain model of an information system as a composition of multi-facetted views. The method uses the concerns of various stakeholders of an IS for partitioning the system conceptual domain in stakeholder-oriented sub-domains. For each concern a high level description includes both the problem associated with it and the role of the stakeholder who manifests the concern. Mental representations descriptions of stakeholders’ beliefs and knowledge related to each concern are identified and on their basis a domain ontology is created. We propose the creation of UML ontological models based on this ontology. Such a model is constructed from the IS ontology preserving the semantics of involved concepts. Then facets of the future IS are created by composing UML ontological models of the stakeholder’s beliefs and knowledge. We applied this in the case of an IS that provides the registration of a new trading company using the services provided by the public administration institutions.


Domain Ontology Ontological Relation Trading Company Informational View Subsumption Relation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S. (2000) Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In: A. Finkelstein, editor: The Future of Software Engineering, A. ACM Press, New York, 35–46.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogdan, C., Serbanati, L. D. ( 2006) Toward a Concern-Oriented Analysis Method for Enterprise Information Systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zlate, M. (2004) Psihologia Mecanismelor Cognitive, Polirom.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guarino, N. (1998) Formal Ontology and Information System. In Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogdan, C., Luzi, D., Ricci, F.L., Serbanati, L.D. (2007) Towards an Ontology using a Concern-Oriented Approach for Information Systems Analysis, Enterprise Interoperability II, New Challenges and Approaches, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A. (2003) WonderWeb Deliverable D18. Ontology Library. IST Project 2001-33052 WonderWeb: Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gangemi, A., Mika, P. (2003) Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situations. In Proceedings of the International Conference ODBASE03, Italy, Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG (2003) Unified Modelling Language Superstructure, version 2.0, ptc/03-0802.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Serbanati, L. D. (1992) Integrating Tools for Software Development, Yourdon Press Computing Series, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A. (1994) A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 20, nr. 10, 760–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ovidius UniversityConstantaRomania
  2. 2.Politehnica UniversityBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations