Two metamodels for application system development conventional vs. object-oriented approach

  • Wolfgang Hesse
Part I. Development Models and Reusability
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 544)


Two metamodels for software application systems development are presented and compared with each other. They represent two methodologies for the software development process. The first is a four level metamodel providing full life-cycle support through its four abstraction levels: user level, functional design level, technical design level, and implementation level. With its functional design level supporting an entity-relationship modelling approach and its technical design and implementation levels supporting the data abstraction approach it reflects the state-of the art of currently practiced application system development techniques.

The second metamodel adopts an object-oriented view on the whole development process including its functional design phase. On that level, data modelling and function modelling categories are combined to a uniform class category which serves as the key concept of an object-oriented application modelling procedure.

In this article, the two metamodels and the corresponding development procedures are explained in detail, discussed and contrasted with each other. There are strong arguments that our future systems will not only technically be object-oriented but also be based on objectoriented application models. It is shown, that existing modelling procedures need not completely be rewritten but can be transformed to object-oriented ones in a natural and evolutionary way.


Entity Type Application Function Functional Design Software Development Process Implementation Level 
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. /ABD 89/.
    ATKINSON, M., BANCILHON, F., DeWITT, D., DITTRICH, K., MAIER, D., ZDONIK, S.: The object-oriented database system manifesto, Proc. DOOD '89, Kyoto 1989Google Scholar
  2. /B-H 89/.
    BOSMAN, J.W., HESSE, W.: A prototype for an integrated CASE tool in a banking environment, Internal report, NMB Bank, Amsterdam and Univ. Marburg (1989)Google Scholar
  3. /B-S 82/.
    BRODIE, M.L., SILVA, E.: Active and passive component modelling: ACM/PCM, in: Olle, T.W. et al.(Eds.): Information system design methodologies: A comparative view, North Holland 1982Google Scholar
  4. /CHE 76/.
    CHEN, P. P.: The entity relationship model: Toward a unified view of data, ACM Transaction on DB system 1.1, pp. 9–36 (1976)Google Scholar
  5. /CUT 88/.
    CUTTS, G.: Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology, in: /EUR 88/, pp. 363–370Google Scholar
  6. /DEM 78/.
    DE MARCO, T.: Structured analysis and systemspecification, Prentice Hall 1978Google Scholar
  7. /DIT 89/.
    DITTRICH, K.R.: Objektorientierte Datenbanksysteme, in: “Das aktuelle Schlagwort”, Informatik-Spektrum 12, S. 215–220 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. /EUR 88/.
    BULLINGER, H.-J. et al. (eds.): Eurinfo '88, Information Technology for Organisational Systems, North Holland 88Google Scholar
  9. /HBD 88/.
    HESSE, W., BOSMAN, J.W., ten DAMME, A.B.J.: A four-level metamodel for application system development, in: /EUR 88/, pp. 575–581Google Scholar
  10. /HES 84a/.
    HESSE, W.: A systematics of software engineering: Structure, terminology and classification of techniques, in: P. PEPPER (Ed.): Program Transformations and Programming Environments, Springer 1984Google Scholar
  11. /HES 84b/.
    HESSE, W.: S/E/TEC: Software-Produktionsumgebung von Softlab, in: Moderne Software-Entwicklungs-systeme und-Werkzeuge, pp. 163–194, Bibliographisches Institut 1984Google Scholar
  12. /HES 90a/.
    HESSE, W.: Objekt-orientierte Anwendungsmodellierung — ein Weg zur (Re-)Strukturierung von Software-Anwendungssystemen (to appear in: Reengineering — Ein integrales Wartungskonzept zum Schutz von Software-Investitionen, AIT Verlag 1990)Google Scholar
  13. /HES 90b/.
    HESSE, W.: Herkömmliche und objekt-orientierte Verfahren zur Anwendungsmodellierung —eine Gegenüberstellung (to appear in: Proc. Workshop Arbeitsverfahren in der Software-Entwicklung, GMD, St. Augustin 1990)Google Scholar
  14. /MER 88/.
    MERBETH, G.: MAESTRO-IPSE — die integrierte Software-Produktions-Umgebung von Softlab, in: BALZERT, H. (Hrsg.): Moderne Software-Entwicklungssysteme und-Werkzeuge, BI-Reihe Informatik, BI-WissenschaftsverlagGoogle Scholar
  15. /MEY 88/.
    MEYER, B.: Object-oriented software construction, Prentice Hall 1988Google Scholar
  16. /MOT 89/.
    MANFREDI, F., ORLANDO, G., TORTORICI, P.: An object-oriented approach to the system analysis, Proc. 2nd European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 395–410, Springer LNCS 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Hesse
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations