A Generic Framework for Modifying and Extending Enterprise Modeling Languages

Richard Braun, Werner Esswein

2015

Abstract

Conceptual modeling languages are of great importance within information systems management. During the last decade, a small set of commonly used enterprise modeling languages established and gained broad acceptance in both academia and practice (e.g., BPMN). Due to their dissemination, these languages often need to be extended or adapted for domain-specific or technical requirements. Since most modeling languages provide rather poor extension mechanisms, it is necessary to modify a language meta model directly. However, there is lack of integrated methodical support for these modifications. Within this position paper, we therefore proclaim a generic framework for modifying enterprise modeling languages on the meta model level. The framework is divided into the main parts of a modeling language (abstract syntax, concrete syntax, semantics) and respective operations (add, remove, specify and redefine).

References

  1. Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., and Fritzsche, M. (2013). Modeling language extension in the enterprise systems domain. In 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pages 49-58.
  2. Bae, J. H., Lee, K., and Chae, H. S. (2008). Modularization of the uml metamodel using model slicing. In Information Technology: New Generations, 2008. ITNG 2008. Fifth International Conference on, pages 1253- 1254. IEEE.
  3. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., and Knackstedt, R. (2007). Adaptive reference modeling: integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In Reference Modeling, pages 27-58. Springer.
  4. Bettin, J. and Clark, T. (2010). Advanced modelling made simple with the gmodel metalanguage. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Model-Driven Interoperability, pages 79-88. ACM.
  5. Braun, C. and Winter, R. (2005). A comprehensive enterprise architecture metamodel and its implementation using a metamodeling platform. Proceedings of the Workshop Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, pages 24-25.
  6. Braun, R. (2015a). Behind the scenes of the bpmn extension mechanism - principles, problems and options for improvement. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development.
  7. Braun, R. (2015b). Towards the state of the art of extending enterprise modeling languages. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development.
  8. Braun, R. and Esswein, W. (2014). Classification of domain-specific bpmn extensions. Lecture Notes of Business Information Processing, 147:42-57.
  9. Braun, R., Schlieter, H., Burwitz, M., and Esswein, W. (2014). Bpmn4cp: Design and implementation of a bpmn extension for clinical pathways. In IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 9-16. IEEE.
  10. Esswein, W. and Weller, J. (2007). Method modifications in a configuration management environment. Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems, pages 2002-2013.
  11. Fondement, F., Muller, P.-A., Thiry, L., Wittmann, B., and Forestier, G. (2013). Big metamodels are evil. In Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 8107 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 138-153. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  12. Frank, U. (1999). Conceptual modelling as the core of the information systems discipline-perspectives and epistemological challenges. In Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 1999), pages 695-697.
  13. Frank, U. (2002). Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (memo) conceptual framework and modeling languages. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 1258-1267.
  14. Greiffenberg, S. (2004). Methodenentwicklung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. Kovac?.
  15. Häggmark, M. and A°gerfalk, P. J. (2006). Why software engineers do not keep to the principle of separating business logic from display: A method rationale analysis. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 399-413. Springer.
  16. Lankhorst, M. M., Proper, H. A., and Jonkers, H. (2009). The architecture of the archimate language. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, pages 367-380. Springer.
  17. OMG (2011a). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG).
  18. OMG (2011b). Unified Modeling Language, Infrastructure, Version 2.4.1. OMG.
  19. OMG (2014). Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.4.2.
  20. Pardillo, J. (2010). A systematic review on the definition of uml profiles. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 407-422. Springer.
  21. Pfeiffer, D. and Gehlert, A. (2005). A framework for comparing conceptual models. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2005), pages 108-122. Citeseer.
  22. Ralyté, J., Rolland, C., and Deneckère, R. (2004). Towards a meta-tool for change-centric method engineering: A typology of generic operators. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 202-218. Springer.
  23. Scheer, A.-W. and Nüttgens, M. (2000). ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. Springer.
  24. Schuette, R. and Rotthowe, T. (1998). The guidelines of modeling-an approach to enhance the quality in information models. In Conceptual Modeling-ER'98, pages 240-254. Springer.
  25. Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., and Jézéquel, J.-M. (2009). Meta-model pruning. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 32-46. Springer.
  26. Silingas, D. and Butleris, R. (2009). Towards customizing uml tools for enterprise architecture modeling. Information Systems, pages 25-27.
  27. Stark, J. and Esswein, W. (2012). Rules from cognition for conceptual modelling. In Conceptual Modeling, pages 78-87. Springer.
  28. Strahringer, S. (1996). Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenvergleichs: Eine Evaluierung am Beispiel objektorientierter Analysenmethoden. PhD thesis, TU Darmstadt.
  29. Stroppi, L. J. R., Chiotti, O., and Villarreal, P. D. (2015). Defining the resource perspective in the development of processes-aware information systems. Information and Software Technology, pages 86-108.
  30. Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modelinga research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4):363-376.
  31. zur Muehlen, M. and Recker, J. (2008). How much language is enough? theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In Advanced information systems engineering, pages 465-479.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Braun R. and Esswein W. (2015). A Generic Framework for Modifying and Extending Enterprise Modeling Languages . In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-097-0, pages 277-286. DOI: 10.5220/0005351702770286


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis15,
author={Richard Braun and Werner Esswein},
title={A Generic Framework for Modifying and Extending Enterprise Modeling Languages},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},
year={2015},
pages={277-286},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005351702770286},
isbn={978-989-758-097-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - A Generic Framework for Modifying and Extending Enterprise Modeling Languages
SN - 978-989-758-097-0
AU - Braun R.
AU - Esswein W.
PY - 2015
SP - 277
EP - 286
DO - 10.5220/0005351702770286