This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
A Methodological Framework for Viewpoint-Oriented Conceptual Modeling
May 2004 (vol. 30 no. 5)
pp. 282-294

Abstract—To solve any nontrivial problem, it first needs to be conceptualized, taking into account the individual who has the problem. However, a problem is generally associated with more than one individual, as is usually the case in software development. Therefore, this process has to take into account different viewpoints about the problem and any discrepancies that could arise as a result. Traditionally, conceptualization in software engineering has omitted the different viewpoints that the individuals may have of the problem and has inherently enforced consistency in the event of any discrepancies, which are considered as something to be systematically rejected. This paper presents a methodological framework that explicitly drives the conceptualization of different viewpoints and manages the different types of discrepancies that arise between them, which become really important in the process. The definition of this framework is generic, and it is, therefore, independent of any particular software development paradigm. Its application to software engineering means that viewpoints and their possible discrepancies can be considered in the software process conceptual modeling phase. This application is illustrated by means of what is considered to be a standard problem: the IFIP Case.

[1] J. Andrade, Un Marco Metodológico para el Modelado Conceptual PhD dissertation, Facultad de Informática, Univ. de A Coruña, Sept. 2002.
[2] J. Andrade, J. Ares, R. García, J. Pazos, S. Rodríguez, and A. Silva, A Methodological Framework for Generic Conceptualisation: Problem-Sensitivity in Software Engineering Information and Software Technology, to be published.
[3] J. Ares and J. Pazos, Conceptual Modelling: An Essential Pillar for Quality Software Development Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 11, pp. 87-104, 1998.
[4] B.I. Blum, Beyond Programming. To a New Era of Design. Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
[5] B. Boehm, P. Grümbacher, and R.O. Briggs, Developing Groupware for Requirements Negotiation: Lessons Learned IEEE Software, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 46-55, 2001.
[6] J.D. Bransford and B.S. Stein, The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity, second ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, 1993.
[7] P.P. Chen, B. Thalheim, and L.Y. Wong, Future Directions of Conceptual Modeling Conceptual Modeling, P.P. Chen et al., eds., 1999.
[8] D.E. Damian, A Research Methodology in the Study of Requirements Negotiations in Geographically Distributed Software Teams Proc. First Int'l Workshop Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Eng., pp. 41-52, 2003.
[9] P. Darke and G. Shanks, Stakeholder Viewpoints in Requirements Definition: A Framework for Understanding Viewpoint Development Approaches Requirements Eng., vol. 1, pp. 88-105, 1996.
[10] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. London: Penguin Press, 1997.
[11] J. A. Díez and C.U. Moulines, Fundamentos de Filosofía de la Ciencia, first ed. Barcelona: Ariel, S.A., 1997.
[12] S. Easterbrook, Handling Conflict between Domain Descriptions with Computer-Supported Negotiation Knowledge Acquisition, vol. 3, pp. 255-289, 1991.
[13] S. Easterbrook, E. Beck, J. Goodlet, L. Plowman, M. Sharples, and C. Wood, A Survey of Empirical Studies of Conflict CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict? S.M. Easterbrook, ed., Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[14] S. Easterbrook and B. Nuseibeh, Using Viewpoints for Inconsistency Management Software Eng. J., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 31-43, 1996.
[15] R.L. Glass, I. Vessey, and V. Ramesh, Research in Software Engineering: An Analysis of the Literature Information and Software Technology, vol. 44, pp. 491-506, 2002.
[16] T.R. Gruber, A Translation Approach to Portable Ontologies Knowledge Acquisition, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 199-220, 1993.
[17] J. Grundy, J. Hosking, and W.B. Mugridge, Inconsistency Management for Multiple-View Software Development Environments IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 960-981, Nov. 1998.
[18] C.A. Gunter, E.L. Gunter, M. Jackson, and P. Zave, “A Reference Model for Requirements and Specifications,” IEEE Software, pp. 37–43, May/June 2000.
[19] J. Hoppenbrouwers, B. van der Vos, and S. Hoppenbrouwers, NL Structures and Conceptual Modelling: Grammalizing for KISS Data and Knowledge Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 79-92, 1997.
[20] R. Jackson, D. Embley, and S. Woodfield, Developing Formal Object-Oriented Requirements Specifications: A Model, Tool and Technique Information Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 273-289, 1995.
[21] M. Jackson, Software Requirements and Specifications. A Lexicon of Practice, Principles and Prejudices. ACM Press and Addison-Wesley, 1995.
[22] D. Jackson and M. Jackson, "Problem Decomposition for Reuse," Software Eng. J., Jan. 1996, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 19-30.
[23] D. Jackson and M. Rinard, Software Analysis: A Roadmap The Future of Software Eng., A. Finkelstein, ed., 2000.
[24] M. Jackson, Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, 2001.
[25] M. Jackson, Problem Analysis and Structure Proc. 2000 NATO Summer School, pp. 3-20, 2001.
[26] G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville, Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. Wiley, 1997.
[27] J. Leite and P.A. Freeman, "Requirements Validation Through Viewpoint Resolution," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1,253-1,269, 1991.
[28] L. Marinoff, Plato, Not Prozac! Applying Philosophy to Everyday Problems. New York: HarperCollins, 1999.
[29] C. Nentwich, L. Capra, W. Emmerich, and A. Finkelstein, xlinkit: A Consistency Checking and Smart Link Generation Service ACM Trans. Internet Technology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 151-185, 2002.
[30] C. Nentwich, W. Emmerich, and A. Finkelstein, Consistency Management with Repair Actions Proc. 25th Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 455-464, 2003.
[31] B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein, "A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 760-773, Oct. 1994.
[32] B. Nuseibeh and S. Easterbrook, Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap The Future of Software Eng., A. Finkelstein, ed., 2000.
[33] B. Nuseibeh, S. Easterbrook, and A. Russo, Leveraging Inconsistency in Software Development Computer, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 24-29, Apr. 2000.
[34] T.W. Olle, Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies in Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Rev., T.W. Olle et al., eds., 1982.
[35] B. Raphael, The Thinking Computer. Mind Inside Matter. San Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1976.
[36] S. Robbins, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications, ninth ed. Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[37] D. Robey, D.L. Farrow, and C.R. Franz, Group Process and Conflict in Systems Development Management Science, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1172-1191, Oct. 1989.
[38] W.N. Robinson, "Negotiation Behavior During Requirement Specification," Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 268-276, 1990.
[39] W. Robinson and S. Pawlowski, Managing Requirements Inconsistency with Development Goal Monitors IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 816-835, June 1999.
[40] A. Silva, Requirements, Domain and Specifications: A Viewpoint-Based Approach to Requirements Engineering Proc. 2002 Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 94-104, 2002.
[41] G. Spanoudakis and A. Finkelstein, Reconciling Requirements: A Method for Managing Interference, Inconsistency and Conflict Annals of Software Eng., vol. 3, pp. 433-457, 1997.
[42] G. Spanoudakis and H. Kim, Diagnosis of the Significance of Inconsistencies in Object-Oriented Designs: A Framework and Its Experimental Evaluation J. Systems and Software, vol. 64, pp. 3-22, 2002.
[43] A. van Lamsweerde, R. Darimont, and E. Letier, "Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering," IEEE Trans. Sofware. Eng., special issue on Inconsistency Management in Software Development, Nov. 1998.
[44] G.M.A. Verheijen and J. van Bekkum, NIAM: An Information Analysis Method Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Rev., T.W. Olle et al., eds., 1982.

Index Terms:
Conceptual modeling, multiple viewpoint, discrepancies, conflicts, inconsistencies, methodological framework.
Citation:
Javier Andrade, Juan Ares, Rafael Garc?, Juan Pazos, Santiago Rodr?guez, Andr? Silva, "A Methodological Framework for Viewpoint-Oriented Conceptual Modeling," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 282-294, May 2004, doi:10.1109/TSE.2004.1
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.