Conceptual modeling languages are purposeful artifacts, hence their design should also start from the purpose that they serve. Such purposeful design addresses the requirements engineering concern of a language specification being aligned with the goals of its users. Thereby relevance of the language is ensured, instead of developing a language for language’s sake. We posit that this addresses some known issues that are due to a misalignment between a language’s specification and the goals of its intended users.
In this paper, we introduce vGREL, a goal- and value-oriented approach for purposeful language development. vGREL helps language engineers to start the design of conceptual modeling languages with requirements engineering exercises. To this end vGREL provides (1) a purpose driven requirements engineering process for language design; (2) a value profile for the Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL) to enable analysis and reasoning during the process and capture its results; and leverages (3) the software tool support of GRL for decision making during language design. To illustrate vGREL, we apply it to a case study on responsibility-based access rights management. Furthermore, we present reflections on vGREL from the language engineer involved in the case study.
Ågerfalk,
P. & Fitzgerald,
B. (2006). Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool. In Advanced Topics in Database Research (Vol. 5, pp. 63–78). IGI Global.
2.
Bjekovic,
M., Proper,
H.A. & Sottet,
J.-S. (2014). Embracing pragmatics. In E.Yu, G.Dobbie, M.Jarke and S.Purao (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8824, pp. 431–444). Springer.
3.
BubenkoJr.,
J., Persson,
A. & Stirna,
J. (2010). An intentional perspective on enterprise modeling. In S.Nurcan, C.Salinesi, C.Souveyet and J.Ralyté (Eds.), Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering (pp. 215–237). Springer.
4.
Chiniforooshan Esfahani,
H. & Yu,
E. (2010). A repository of agile method fragments. In New Modeling Concepts for Today’s Software Processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6195, pp. 163–174). Springer.
5.
Chiniforooshan Esfahani,
H., Yu,
E. & Cabot,
J. (2010). Situational evaluation of method fragments: An evidence-based goal-oriented approach. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 424–438). Springer.
6.
de Kinderen,
S., Gaaloul,
K. & Proper,
H.A. (2014).
Bridging value modelling to ArchiMate via transaction modelling. Software & Systems Modeling, 13(3), 1043–1057.
7.
de Kinderen,
S., Ma,
Q. & Proper,
H.A. (2014). Model bundling: Towards a value-based componential approach for language engineering. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Value Modeling and Business Ontology (VMBO 2014).
8.
de Kinderen,
S. & Proper,
H.A. (2013). e3RoME: A value-based approach for method bundling. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’13 (pp. 1469–1471). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
9.
Elrod,
T., Johnson,
R.D. & White,
J. (2004).
A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 1–19.
10.
Feltus,
C. (2014). Aligning access rights to governance needs with the responsibility MetaModel (ReMMo) in the frame of enterprise architecture. PhD thesis, University of Namur.
11.
Feltus,
C., Dubois,
E., Proper,
E., Band,
I. & Petit,
M. (2012). Enhancing the ArchiMate standard with a responsibility modeling language for access rights management. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Security of Information and Networks, SIN’12 (pp. 12–19). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
12.
Ferraiolo,
D.F., Sandhu,
R., Gavrila,
S., Kuhn,
D.R. & Chandramouli,
R. (2001).
Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 4(3), 224–274.
13.
Frank,
U. (2013). Domain-specific modeling languages: Requirements analysis and design guidelines. In Domain Engineering (pp. 133–157). Springer.
14.
Gordijn,
J. & Akkermans,
H. (2003).
Value based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering Journal, 8(2), 114–134.
15.
ITU-T (2008). User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition. Recommendation Z.151 (11/08). Available at: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en [last accessed on 31-07-2014].
16.
Lankhorst,
M., et al. (2012). Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis (3rd ed.). Springer.
17.
Liu,
L. & Yu,
E. (2004).
Designing information systems in social context: A goal and scenario modelling approach. Information Systems, 29(2), 187–203.
18.
Malavolta,
I., Lago,
P., Muccini,
H., Pelliccione,
P. & Tang,
A. (2013).
What industry needs from architectural languages: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(6), 869–891.
19.
Meertens,
L.O., Iacob,
M.E., Nieuwenhuis,
L.J.M., van Sinderen,
M.J., Jonkers,
H. & Quartel,
D. (2012). Mapping the business model canvas to ArchiMate. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’12 (pp. 1694–1701). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
20.
Mernik,
M., Heering,
J. & Sloane,
A.M. (2005).
When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(4), 316–344.
21.
Moody,
D.L. (2005).
Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: Current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 243–276.
22.
Object Management Group (2014). Object Constraint Language v2.4.
23.
Pijpers,
V., de Leenheer,
P., Gordijn,
J. & Akkermans,
H. (2012).
Using conceptual models to explore business-ICT alignment in networked value constellations. Requirements Engineering, 17(3), 203–226.
24.
Rossi,
M., Ramesh,
B., Lyytinen,
K. & Tolvanen,
J. (2004).
Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(9), 356–391.
25.
Rothenberg,
J. (1989). The nature of modeling. In Artificial Intelligence, Simulation & Modeling (pp. 75–92). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26.
Spinellis,
D. (2001).
Notable design patterns for domain-specific languages. Journal of Systems and Software, 56(1), 91–99.
27.
Steinberg,
D., Budinsky,
F., Paternostro,
M. & Merks,
E. (2008). EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.
28.
Stirna,
J. & Persson,
A. (2012). Purpose driven competency planning for enterprise modeling projects. In J.Ralyté, X.Franch, S.Brinkkemper and S.Wrycza (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7328, pp. 662–677). Springer.
29.
Strembeck,
M. & Zdun,
U. (2009).
An approach for the systematic development of domain-specific languages. Software: Practice and Experience, 39(15), 1253–1292.
30.
Thalheim,
B. (2011). The theory of conceptual models, the theory of conceptual modelling and foundations of conceptual modelling. In D.W.Embley and B.Thalheim (Eds.), Handbook of Conceptual Modeling (pp. 543–577). Springer.
31.
van Buuren,
R., Gordijn,
J. & Janssen,
W. (2005). Business case modelling for e-services. In 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action (Paper 8). AIS Electronic Library.
32.
Zdun,
U. (2010).
A DSL toolkit for deferring architectural decisions in DSL-based software design. Information and Software Technology, 52(7), 733–748.
