Advertisement

The role of meta models in federating system modelling techniques

  • Phillip M. Steele
  • Arkady B. Zaslavsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)

Abstract

Given the large number of system modelling techniques currently available, and the continual need to develop new and improved paradigms and approaches, it must be accepted that this diversity is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable. At the same time, it must be admitted, that the lack of integration and interoperability creates difficulties in effectively combining heterogeneous system modelling techniques and inhibits cost efficient transition of models from one CASE tool to another. This paper discusses the problems of incorporating heterogeneous system modelling techniques, including the extended entity-relationship approach and data flow diagrams, into a unifying conceptual framework. It also outlines the DROTIS project, which aims to develop a generic meta model and a set of interfaces and protocols to support the integration and interoperability of different system modelling techniques and CASE tools used for information systems development. The concept of a semantic space is introduced. This space allows the representation of different system modelling techniques as subsets of concepts in order to support their interoperability and federation.

Keywords

Modelling Technique Entity Type Life Cycle Stage Action Diagram Semantic Space 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ANSI92]
    ANSI Draft IRDS Conceptual Schema, X3H4.6/92-001R3, X3H4/92-003R3 American National Standards Institute, 1992Google Scholar
  2. [ANSI90]
    Information Resource Dictionary System-ATIS (A Tools Integration Standard) X3H4 Working Draft, American National Standards Institute, 1990Google Scholar
  3. [ATTO91]
    Atzeni,P. & Torlone,R. A Metamodel Approach for the Management of Multiple Models in CASE-tools. In:” Database and Expert Systems Applications: Proceedings of the International Conference in Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany, 1991/D.Karagiannis, Ed, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp.350–355Google Scholar
  4. [BEDA92]
    Beynon-Davies,P. Entity Models to Object Models: Object Oriented Analysis and Database Design, Information and Software Technology, Vol.34, No 4, April 1992, pp.255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [CGSL91]
    Crockett,H.D. Guynes,J., Slinkman,C.W. Framework for development of conceptual data modelling techniques. In: Information and Software Technology, 33, No.2, March, 1991, p. 134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [ECMA90]
    ECMA European Computer Manufacturers Association Portable Common Tool Environment Standard, ECMA-149, European Computer Manufacturers Association, 1990Google Scholar
  7. [EIAS91]
    Electronics Industries Association, CASE Data Interchange Format, Interim Standards, July, 1991Google Scholar
  8. [ELNA89]
    Elmasri,R., Navathe,S. Fundamentals of Database Systems, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, 1989Google Scholar
  9. [HAWR88]
    Hawryszkiewycz,I.T. Introduction to Systems Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, 1988Google Scholar
  10. [IEFG90]
    A Guide to Information Engineering Using the IEFℳ. Computer-Aided Planning, Analysis, and Design.-2nd ed. Texas Instruments Inc., 1990Google Scholar
  11. [IMBE91]
    Imber,M. CASE Data Interchange Format Standards. In: Information and Software Technology, 33, No.9, November, 1991, pp.647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [MMCL85]
    Martin, J. & McClure,C. (1985) Diagramming Techniques for Analysts and Programmers. Prentice-Hall, 1985Google Scholar
  13. [NIHA89]
    Nijssen.G.M & Halpin,T.A. Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design, Prentice Hall, Sydney, 1989Google Scholar
  14. [OLLE91]
    Olle.W. T., et al. (1991) Information Systems Methodologies, A Framework for Understanding, Second Edition, Addison Wesley, 1987Google Scholar
  15. [SHKA92]
    Sheth.A. & Kashyap,V. So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically), In: IFIP DS-5 Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems, Proceedings, Lorne, Victoria, Australia, November 16–20, 1992, pp.272–301Google Scholar
  16. [SOWA84]
    Sowa,J. F. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison-Wesley, 1984Google Scholar
  17. [SOZA92]
    Sowa,J.F. & Zachman,J.A. Extending and Formalising the Framework for Information Systems Architecture, IBM Systems Journal, 31, No. 3, 1992Google Scholar
  18. [STEE92]
    Steele, P. M. The Information Repository as a Means of Integrating CASE Tools, Third Australian Conference on Information Systems, Wollongong, NSW, 1992, pp.479–494Google Scholar
  19. [STZA93a]
    Steele, P.M. & Zaslavsky, A.B. The Role of Metamodels in Federating System Modelling Techniques. Technical Report 93-08. School of Computing & Information Technology, Frankston, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, p. 1–21, 1993Google Scholar
  20. [STZA93b]
    Steele, P.M. & Zaslavsky, A.B. CASE Tool Support for Integration of System Modelling Techniques, In: Proceedings of 4th Australian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 28–30 September 1993, p.521–534.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip M. Steele
    • 1
  • Arkady B. Zaslavsky
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing & Information TechnologyFrankston Monash UniversityFrankstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations