Advertisement

A repository meta model for interactive systems

  • W. David Hurley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)

Abstract

Developers of interactive systems need a design process that looks ahead to expose conflicting implications of decisions made by user interface designers and software designers. To support a design-by-reuse paradigm, such a design process must include a repository-based environment for coordinating the selection and modification of reusable design elements. This paper presents a repository meta model that extends the ER model to unify user interface and software design information, to make explicit the semantics of abstract connections between user interface and software design elements, and to support an environment of integrated design tools. Two detailed examples illustrate using the meta model in ongoing research projects.

Keywords

User Interface Design Space Design Choice Design Information Meta Model 
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. 1.
    L. Bass, J. Coutaz, Developing Software for the User Interface, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Brachman, “What IS-A is and isn't,” IEEE Comput., vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 30–36, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. V. Carlsen, “Towards a common context for user interface management system design,” in Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of the IFIP TC2\2.7 Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 13–34, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Castano, V. De Antonellis, “Classifying and reusing conceptual schemas,” in Entity-Relationship Approach-ER '92: 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pp. 121–138, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. L. Hood, E. R. Carson, Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Gandhi, “A specification-based data model,” in Entity-Relationship Approach-ER '92: 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pp. 194–209, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Halper, J. Geller, Y. Perl, “'Part’ relations for object-oriented databases,” in Entity-Relationship Approach-ER '92: 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pp. 406–422, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. D. Hurley, “Predicting the impact of user interface design on software design,” in Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of the IFIP TC2\2.7 Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 349–362, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. D. Hurley, “Towards a formalized context for designing user interface management systems,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE '93), pp. 406–413, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. D. Hurley, “Towards an infrastructure for managing interactive software design,” to appear in Journal of Computer and Software Engineering (in press).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. G. Lane, A Design Space and Design Rules for User Interface Software Architecture, Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-22, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. McClure, The Three Rs of Software Automation: Re-engineering, repository, reusability, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Patel-Schneider, et al., “Term subsumption languages in knowledge representation,” AI Mag., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 16–22, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Rich, R. C. Waters, “Knowledge intensive software engineering tools,” IEEE Trans. Know. Eng. & Data Eng., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 424–430, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Rich, K. Knight, Artificial Intelligence, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.-W. Scheer, “Embedding data modelling in a general architecture for integrated information systems,” in Entity-Relationship Approach-ER '92: 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pp. 139–161, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Shlaer, S. Mellor, Object-Oriented Systems Analysis: Modeling the World in Data, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Yourdon Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Sowa, Conceptual Structures: Information Processing In Mind and Machine, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Webster, “Mapping the design information terrain,” IEEE Comput., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 8–23, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. E. Winston, R. Chaffin, D. Herrmann, “A taxonomy of part-whole relations,” Cog. Sci., vol. 11, pp. 417–444, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. David Hurley
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations