Date post: | 25-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kenneth-webster |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
A template-based analysis of the GRLEMMSAD 2005, june 13-14, Porto
A template-based analysis of the GRLEMMSAD 2005, june 13-14, Porto
Gautier Dallons, Patrick Heymans, Isabelle Pollet
University of Namur (Belgium)PRECISE research lab
www.info.fundp.ac.be/PRECISE
We thank Andreas L. Opdahl and
OutlineOutline
• Context: UEML and InterOP
• Objectives
• Template
• GRL
• Applying the template to GRL
• Observations and findings
• Summary of contributions
• Future work
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
• Enterprise Modelling (EM) modelling the various aspects of the enterprise
• processes, resources, organisational structure, information and information flows, strategy,...
for various purposes• developing supporting IS, simulation, planning, decision making,
training,...• support enterprise interoperabilty and integration
• Current situation : tower a Babel many languages, many tools
• Consequence : interoperability, integration and shared enterprise knowledge difficult to attain
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
• UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language An intermediate language that supports
• integration and transformation of enterprise models• maintaining global consistency across models and tools
• Past: UEML 1.0 (2003, UEML project) small pilot project focus on process integrates 3 EMLs: GRAI [Doumeingts], EEML
[Jorgensen&Carlsen] and IEM [Mertins&Jochem] used ad-hoc DB-inspired integration approach
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
• Present: towards UEML 2.0 started in 2004 as one of the activities of InterOP NoE larger and distributed settings long term iterative and incremental process
RequirementsRequirements LanguagesLanguages
ApproachesApproaches
integrated throughdeterminechoice and
improvement of
determinechoice of
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
UEML and InterOPwww.interop-noe.org
• Current task Find out constructs of different languages that are
suitable for modelling the same real-world things
Approach: based on template by Opdahl and
Henderson-Sellers
Current shortlist of languages being studied:
UML 2.0, GRL, XPDL, BPMN, IDEF3,
ISO/DIS 19440, Coloured Petri Nets
Objectivesof this paper
Objectivesof this paper
• Report on template-based definition of GRL 1st iteration
• Why GRL ? Goals are an important aspect of the enterprise
Goal modelling is currently missing in the UEML
GRL integrates i* and NFR
GRL is expected to become popular
GRL has a public specification
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
• Purpose structured text-based way of defining the syntax
and semantics of modeling languages for further analysis, comparison, integration,...
• Advantages distributed work simple to use tailorability and extensibility
• Limitations no visualisation, no overall picture
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
• Template fields (per modelling construct) (1/2)
Preamble1. Construct name
2. Alternative construct names
3. Which language the construct is part of
4. Language acronym and references (URI/other)
5. Which diagram types the construct is used in
6. Diagram type acronym and references (URI/other)
Syntax definition1. Icon/line style (lexical information)
2. User-definable attributes
3. Relationships to other constructs– Same diagram type– Same language, other diagram types
4. Cardinality restrictions
5. Layout conventions
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
• Template fields (2/2)
Semantics (in terms of BWW-Ontology)
1. Which instantiation level is the modelling construct intended to
represent?
2. Which class of things is it intended to represent?
3. Which properties is it intended to represent, if any?
Which relationships is it intended to represent, if any?
4. Which states, events and processes is it intended to represent, if any?
5. Which modality (permission, recommendation etc) is is intended to
represent?
1. Open issues
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
Template[Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004]
For eachconstruct
For eachconstruct
Inst levelInst level
SegmentSegment
OntologicalClass
OntologicalClass
OntologicalProperty
OntologicalProperty
RepresentedClass
RepresentedClass
RepresentedProperty
RepresentedProperty
Represented event
Represented event
Ontologicalstate
Ontologicalstate
Ontological event
Ontological event
Shared ontology
Shared ontology
Representedstate
Representedstate
ModalityModality
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
• Goal-oriented Requirements Language aka ITU standard URN-NFR
• Originates from NFR (Chung) and i* (Yu)
• 4 categories of concepts in GRL Actor
intentional elements• Goal, Softgoal, Task, Resource and Belief
links (intentional relationships)• Dependency, Decomposition, Means-end,
Contibution, Correlation
non-intentional elements• references to non-GRL model elements
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
• GRL 3.0 specification consists of 3 concrete syntaxes
• textual syntax (in BNF)• graphical syntax (in BNF + topological information)• XML syntax (as an XML DTD)
informal semantics examples of GRL models a tutorial
• No abstract syntax (meta-model)
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
GRL 3.0www.usecasemaps.org/urn
Example(from [Yu])Example(from [Yu])
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
ActiveThingActiveThing StateLawStateLaw
GoalGoal
”Actor”0:1
”Actor”0:1
”Goal”1:1
”Goal”1:1
ThingThing
{instance, type}{instance, type}
Life timeLife time
”Attribute”0:n
”Attribute”0:n
AnyRegularProperty
AnyRegularProperty
”Dependency”0:n
”Dependency”0:n
TransformationLaw
TransformationLaw
”Means-end”0:n
”Means-end”0:n
”Decomposition”0:n
”Decomposition”0:n
LawLaw
Wished by actorif any
Wished by actorif any
PropertyProperty
isHeldByrepresents
isDependumOf
hasAttribute isSubElementIn isEndIn
Applying the template to GRLApplying the template to GRL
• Some sample BWW definitions: “A state law is a law that constrains the values that other properties
can have for individual states the thing can be in, i.e., state laws are
structural/static.”
“A transformation law is a law that constrains the values that other
properties can have across multiple states, i.e., transformation laws
are behavioural/dynamic.”
“One thing acts on another thing if and only if the history of the second
thing would have been different had the first thing not existed.”
“We say that one thing is acted on by another thing if and only if the
second thing acts on the first.”
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
• Some of the issues raised
A Goal is not always held by an Actor !
• whose goal is it if it is not ?
Are Actors humans or can they be other things (computer-
systems, organisational units,...)?
Specific individuals or classes? Roles ?
Whose properties does the state law constrain?
• the future system ? the current system ? the overall organisation ?
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
ActiveThingActiveThing StateLawStateLaw
GoalGoal
”Actor”0:1
”Actor”0:1
”Goal”1:1
”Goal”1:1
ThingThing
{instance, type}{instance, type}
Life timeLife time
”Attribute”0:n
”Attribute”0:n
AnyRegularProperty
AnyRegularProperty
”Dependency”0:n
”Dependency”0:n
TransformationLaw
TransformationLaw
”Means-end”0:n
”Means-end”0:n
”Decomposition”0:n
”Decomposition”0:n
LawLaw
Wished by actorif any
Wished by actorif any
”FutureSystem”
1:1
”FutureSystem”
1:1
ActedOnThing
ActedOnThing
PropertyProperty
isHeldBy
represents isDependumOf
hasAttribute isSubElementIn isEndInisAbout
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
Applying the template to GRLExample: Goal
• Some of the issues raised (cont’s)
According to the syntax, Goal can also be the source (depender) or
target (dependee) of a Dependency.
What does it mean ?
• the attainment of that goal depends or is depended on by ‘something’ ?
overlap with the semantics of Contribution and Correlation
what can that ‘something’ be ?
• the actor depends on ‘something’ for the attainment of that goal
what if there is no holding actor ?
what can that ‘something’ be ?
• ... ?
Applying the template to GRL Overview
Applying the template to GRL Overview
GRL construct BWW represented class
BWW represented property
Actor ActiveThing -
Goal - StateLaw
Task - TransformationLaw
Softgoal - StateLaw
Resource ActedOnThing -
Belief - StateLaw
Filled in template: 2-3 pages per construct
Applying the template to GRL Overview
Applying the template to GRL Overview
GRL construct BWW represented class
BWW represented property
Means-end - TransformationLaw
Dependency - StateLaw
Decomposition - TransformationLaw
Contribution - MutualProperty
Correlation - MutualProperty
Observations and findingsObservations and findings
Template-based definition required high degree of subjectivity
• essentially because GRL spec is imprecise
Many dark spots in GRL• central constructs without or with vague semantics
e.g. goal, actor, dependency
• true of secondary construct too e.g. « short-hands »
• contradictions between the various concrete syntaxes• parts of the syntax are not very intuitive
e.g. DECOMPOSITION <ID> FROM <SUB-EL>TO <COMPOUND-EL>
better: DECOMPOSITION <ID> OF <COMPOUND-EL>INTO <SUB-EL>
Observations and findingsObservations and findings
Using the template was easy• short tutorial (1h) + examples enough to start
• took 4 days to complete
Getting into BWW was harder• but the template helped gain familiarity with BWW
BWW too general to discriminate between GRL constructs• e.g. Goal, Softgoal, Belief and Dependency all have StateLaw as
a BWW represented property
• informal justifications and open issues in template are as important as represented classes and properties
Many repetitive tasks in filling in the template
Summary of contributionsSummary of contributions
• Made abstract syntax (meta-model) of GRL explicit
• Made (a tentative) semantic of GRL explicit
• Discovered problems in current version of GRL
• Discovered limits in current version of template
Future workFuture work
• 2nd iteration Add new classes and properties to BWW
• toward an enterprise-specific version of the ontology
Complete template-based definition of GRL• discuss results with GRL users and ITU to seek consensus• use more specific BWW classes and properties• issues not addressed yet: Contribution and Correlation
subtypes in GRL
Future workFuture work
• Complete definitions of other EMLs
• Compare definitions of EMLs
• Integrate into the UEML
• Tool support for template usage collaborative editing and management of templates
repository
automate comparisons of EMLs
visualisation
import meta-models (if they exist)
...