RESOLVING ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION AMBIGUITIES DURING SOFTWARE DESIGN USING SEMIOTIC AGENT MODELLING

Eric Yu, Daniel Gross

2010

Abstract

For software designers to effectively collaborate, they must share an understanding of how software design artifacts contribute to the execution of software processes (the artifact’s operational meaning). However, during design, artifact descriptions often lack sufficient detail to unequivocally establish operational meaning. This is because during design, artifact descriptions are initially usually first-cut, and are then successively refined to include additional design details, until the operational meaning of artifacts can be unequivocally demonstrated. Ensuring shared meaning in larger projects is particularly difficult because of the plethora of interrelated artifacts designers deal with, and because the design details in descriptions of different artifacts can vary greatly. In this paper we argue that a semiotic meaning analysis supports clarifying the operational meaning of artifacts during software design, and can help in identifying whether and in what way artifact descriptions must be further elaborated. We further argue that clarifying the operational meaning of artifacts is closely intertwined with design decision-making. Adapting an existing semiotic agent modelling approach, we propose an approach to capturing the evolving operational meaning of artifacts during software design and decision processes, and illustrate the approach with examples taken from a large design project at an insurance company.

References

  1. Berry, D., Kamsties, E. & Kriekger, M. (2003). From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity. School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo.
  2. Erl, T. (2007). SOA Principles of Service Design (The Prentice Hall Service-Oriented Computing Series from Thomas Erl).
  3. Fowler, M. & Scott, K. (2000). UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language, Reading, Mass., Addison Wesley.
  4. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software, Reading: Mass., Addison-Wesley.
  5. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. IN SHAW, R. E. & BRANSFORD, J. (Eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Gross, D. & Yu, E. (2001a). Evolving System Architecture to Meet Changing Business Goals: An Agent and Goal-Oriented Approach. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society.
  7. Gross, D. & Yu, E. (2001b). From Non-Functional Requirements To Design Through Patterns. Requirements Engineering, 6, 18-36.
  8. Gross, D. & Yu, E. (2010). Supporting the evolution of software architectures in development organizations using intentional agents. Fourth International i* Workshop - istar 2010.
  9. Josuttis, N. M. (2007). SOA in Practice - The Art of Distributed System Design, O'Reilly.
  10. Liu, K. (2000). Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering, Cambridge University Press.
  11. Liu, K., Sun, L., Dix, A. & Narasipuram, M. (2001). Norm-based agency for designing collaborative information systems. Information Systems Journal, 11, 229-247.
  12. Luo, A. & Liu, K. (2009). Using Organizational Semiotics Methods for Information Systems Architecture Design. The 11th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organizations. Beijing, China.
  13. Michaels, C. F. & Carello, C. (1981). Direct Perception, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  14. Nobel, J., Biddle, R. & Tempero, E. (2006). Patterns as Signs: A Semiotics of Object-Oriented Design Patterns. An International Journal on Communication, Information Technology and Work, 2, 3-40.
  15. Stamper, R. (1973). Information in Business and Administrative Systems, Oxford, Blackwell.
  16. Stamper, R. (2006). Exploring the semantics of communication acts. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on the language action perspective. Kiruna: Linköping University.
  17. Stamper, R. & Ades, Y. (2004). Semantic Normal Form and System Quality. Proceedings IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering, Kyoto.
  18. Stamper, R., Liu, K., Sun, L., Tan, S., Shah, H., Sharp, B. & Dong, D. (2003). Semiotic Methods for Enterprise Design and IT Applications. Staffordshire University, Reading University.
  19. Westland, J. C. (2002). The cost of errors in software development: evidence from industry. The Journal of Systems and Software, 62, 1-9.
  20. Yu, E. (1994a). Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Re-Engineering. Department of Computer Science. University of Toronto.
  21. Yu, E. (1994b). Understanding "Why" in Software Process Modelling, Analysis, and Design. Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Yu E. and Gross D. (2010). RESOLVING ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION AMBIGUITIES DURING SOFTWARE DESIGN USING SEMIOTIC AGENT MODELLING . In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations - Volume 1: ICISO, ISBN 978-989-8425-26-3, pages 77-86. DOI: 10.5220/0003270200770086


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iciso10,
author={Eric Yu and Daniel Gross},
title={RESOLVING ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION AMBIGUITIES DURING SOFTWARE DESIGN USING SEMIOTIC AGENT MODELLING},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations - Volume 1: ICISO,},
year={2010},
pages={77-86},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003270200770086},
isbn={978-989-8425-26-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations - Volume 1: ICISO,
TI - RESOLVING ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION AMBIGUITIES DURING SOFTWARE DESIGN USING SEMIOTIC AGENT MODELLING
SN - 978-989-8425-26-3
AU - Yu E.
AU - Gross D.
PY - 2010
SP - 77
EP - 86
DO - 10.5220/0003270200770086