1 / 7

Interesting Papers of EDOC 2013

Interesting Papers of EDOC 2013. by Matt Selway KSE Lab Meeting 10 Dec 2013. Introduction. EDOC 2013 The Enterprise Computing Conference Covers diverse areas of enterprise computing including: Enterprise architecture Services, SoA Model-based approaches Business processes etc.

ivria
Download Presentation

Interesting Papers of EDOC 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interesting Papers of EDOC 2013 by Matt Selway KSE Lab Meeting 10 Dec 2013

  2. Introduction EDOC 2013 • The Enterprise Computing Conference • Covers diverse areas of enterprise computing including: • Enterprise architecture • Services, SoA • Model-based approaches • Business processes • etc. • Vancouver, Canada • Lovely place

  3. Towards a Commitment-based Reference Ontology for Services (DOI 10.1109/EDOC.2013.28) • Won best paper award • Does not include a concept called ‘service’ • Presents a core ontology grounded in UFO (Unified Foundational Ontology) • Services display similar characteristics to other phenomena, e.g. functions, artefacts • Commitments may not be fulfilled • Capability does not imply service or commitment • Their model can describe services from different perspectives (including technical level) • Would be interesting to see how it could help relate my SBVR stuff to business processes and their lower-level models Nardi, de Almeida Falbo, Almeida, Guizzardi, Pires, van Sinderen, Guarino (see notes for institutes)

  4. Decisions, Models, and Monitoring – A Lifecycle Model for the Evolution of Service-Based Systems (DOI 10.1109/EDOC.2013.29) • Meta-model for (automated) evolution of SBSs • Defines artefact types, capabilities for change, ‘adaptation’ rules, goals (usually non-functional reqs), and monitoring rules, etc. from design phases to implementation • Therefore, system can reason about what changes can or should be made in order to fulfil violated goals • Escalation process moves from run-time up the model levels if the lower-level changes cannot fulfil the goal • Authors suggest a repository of previous applications could allow querying for implementations that achieve goals • Could be interesting to combine it with Alex’s work Inzinger, Hummer, Lytra, Leitner, Tran, Zdun, Dustdar (see notes for institutes)

  5. Ensuring Consistency Among Business Goals and Business Process Models (DOI 10.1109/EDOC.2013.12) • Defines a pattern-based approach to creating business process constraints from goal models • Basically a model transformation from an (annotated) goal model to a constraint model • Seems a little strange that their goal model gets drilled down into a seemingly 1-to-1 correspondence with the expected activities • This led to some confusion I think in the presentation • Interesting relation to SBVR • potentially SBVR models could be transformed into similar constraint models for validating business process models Nagel, Gerth, Engels (Software Quality Lab, University of Paderborn), Post (University of Paderborn)

  6. A Metamodelling Approach for Reasoning on Multiple Requirements Models (DOI 10.1109/EDOC.2013.26) • Defines a core meta-model for requirements models • Similarities to what we are doing with ISO 15926 and CCOM • Maps requirements models into the core meta-model to allow reasoning between them • Core meta-model very simple • Requirement model • Requirement • Relationship with 6 subtypes (requires, refines, etc.) • Semantics provided in FOL, but they implement it in OWL • OK because not much semantics • Use the OWL reasoner to infer new relationships and find conflicts based on their (non)-symmetric, (non-)transitive, etc. Goknil (AOSTE Team, INRIA), Kurtev (Nspyre), Millo (also AOSTE)

  7. Honourable Mentions •  Formalising Natural Language Specifications Using a Cognitive Linguistic/Configuration-Based Approach • M. Selway, G. Grossman, W. Mayer, M. Stumptner • An ontology-based well-founded proposal for Modelling Resources and Capabilities • Azevedo, et al. (inc. some of the same people on the best paper) • Modelling Language Extension in the Enterprise Systems Domain • Atkinson, Gerbig, and Fritzsche • Real-time analytics for legacy data streams in health • Berry and Milosevic

More Related