Archive‎ > ‎

2008

EMMSAD 2008 was organized in Montpellier, France, on June 16-17, 2008. It was held in conjunction with CAiSE'08.

The field of information systems analysis and design includes numerous information modeling methods and notations (e.g. ER, ORM, UML, DFDs, BPMN), that are typically evolving. Even with some attempts to standardize (e.g. UML for object-oriented design), new modeling methods are constantly being introduced, many of which differ only marginally from existing approaches. These ongoing changes significantly impact the way information systems are being analyzed and designed in practice.

This workshop focuses on exploring, evaluating, and enhancing current information modeling methods and methodologies. Though the need for such studies is well recognized, there is a paucity of such research in the literature. The objective of EMMSAD’08 is to provide a forum for researchers and practitioners interested in modeling methods in systems analysis and design to meet, and exchange research ideas and results. It also provides the participants an opportunity to present their research papers and experience reports, and to take part in open discussions. EMMSAD’08 is the thirteenth in a very successful series of EMMSAD workshops, previously held in Heraklion, Barcelona, Pisa, Heidelberg, Stockholm, Interlaken, Toronto, Velden, Riga, Porto, Luxembourg and Trondheim.

This year we had 25 papers submitted from 17 countries (Australia, Austria, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and The United States). After an extensive review process by a distinguished international program committee, with each paper receiving at least three reviews, we accepted the 14 papers that appear in these proceedings. Congratulations to the successful authors!

Apart from the contribution by paper authors, the quality of this workshop depends in no small way on the generous contribution of time and effort by the program committee and the additional reviewers. Their work is greatly appreciated. We also express our sincere thanks to the CAiSE organizing committee, especially the CAiSE workshop organizers Ela Hunt (Global Information Systems Group, ETH, Zürich) and Xavier Franch, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona).

Continuing with our very successful collaboration with IFIP WG 8.1 that started in 1997, this year's workshop is again a joint activity of CAiSE and WG 8.1. The European INTEROP Network of Excellence has also sponsored this workshop since 2005, as has AIS-SIGSAND.

Accepted papers

  1. J. Mendling and J. Recker. Towards Systematic Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Models. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 1-13, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Surprisingly little research has investigated the factors contributing to the successful practice of process modeling, in particular those contributing to the development of process models that facilitate human understanding. This research discusses the use of text and icons for labeling the graphical constructs in a process model. We discuss the use of two verb classification schemes to propose a systematic approach for describing, and graphically representing, domain semantics in labels used in process model constructs such that human understanding can be improved. We argue that the systematic use of domain labels and corresponding icons will result in process models that are easier and more readily understandable by end users. Our findings contribute to an ongoing stream of research investigating the practice of process modeling and thereby contribute to the body of knowledge about conceptual modeling quality overall.
    [Paper]

  2. A. Munk-Madsen. The Power Context of Method-in-Action: A Case Study. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 14-24, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Important parts of the knowledge within the field of information systems are represented as methods. Methods focus on the development process. Although methods are applied in complex settings, involving different actors with different interests and power bases, this is normally not reflected in an integral manner in the methods. Based on a case study of a method in action a model of the context of a method is proposed. This model describes a method as a prescription for professional behavior as well as part of a cultural power base.
    [Paper]

  3. M. Keet. A Formal Comparison of Conceptual Data Modeling Languages. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 25-39, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    An essential aspect of conceptual data modeling methodologies is the language's expressiveness so as to represent the subject domain as precise as possible to obtain good quality models and, consequently, software. To gain better insight in the characteristics of the main con- ceptual modeling languages, we conducted a comparison between ORM, ORM2, UML, ER, and EER with the aid of Description Logic languages of the DLR family and the new formally defined generic conceptual data modeling language CMcom that is based on DLRifd. ORM, ER, EER, and UML class diagrams are proper fragments of ORM2 and CMcom has the most expressive common denominator with these languages. CMcom simplifies prospects for automated, online, interoperability among the considered languages so that modelers not only can continue using their preferred modeling language yet be compatible with the other ones, but also have a common ground that eases database and software integration based on commonly used conceptual data models.
    [Paper]

  4. A. Carver and T. Halpin. Atomicity and Normalization. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 40-54, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    A common aim of data modeling approaches is to produce schemas whose instantiations are always redundancy-free. This is especially useful when the implementation target is a relational database. This paper contrasts two very different approaches to attain a redundancy-free relational schema. The Object- Role Modeling (ORM) approach emphasizes capturing semantics first in terms of atomic (elementary or existential) fact types, followed by synthesis of fact types into relation schemes. Normalization by decomposition instead focuses on “nonloss decomposition” to various, and progressively more refined, “normal forms”. Nonloss decomposition of a relation requires decomposition into smaller relations that, upon natural join, yield the exact original population. Nonloss decomposition of a table scheme (or relation variable) requires that the decomposition of all possible populations of the relation scheme is reversible in this way. In this paper we show that the dependency requirement for “all possible populations” is too restrictive for definitions of multivalued and join dependencies over relation schemes. By exploiting modeling heuristics underlying ORM, we offer better definitions of these data dependencies, and of “nonloss decomposition”, thus enabling these concepts to be addressed at a truly semantic level.
    [Paper]

  5. G. Costain and A. Srinivasan. A Modeling Methodology for Empirically Studying User Behavior: The Case of UML Diagram Usage. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 55-70, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    The use of UML diagrams and associated methodologies in the development of software applications has, on the one hand been presented as a standard, while on the other hand has been criticized by empiricists who have actually studied its usage. In this paper, we describe a useful empirical method to analyze data about the nature, extent, and quality of cognitive support that the use of UML diagrams provides to a software developer. The data was collected and analyzed in a controlled experimental setup from both experienced and novice users. Our approach to analysing data in this study has the potential for wide applicability in empirical validation studies where focus on the process of usage is important.
    [Paper]

  6. A. Mattsson, B. Lundell, and B. Lings. Modelling Architectural Design Rules in UML. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 71-79, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Current techniques for modelling software architecture do not support the modelling of architectural design rules, which are recognized as important design artefacts by current research in software architecture. This is a problem in the context of Model-Driven Development in which it is assumed that major design artefacts are represented as formal or semi-formal models. This paper addresses this problem by proposing how architectural design rules could be expressed in UML in a meta-model for the system model
    [Paper]

  7. R. Deneck`ere, A. Iacovelli, E. Kornyshova, and C. Souveyet. From Method Fragments to Method Services. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 80-96, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    n Method Engineering (ME) science, the key issue is the consideration of information system development methods as fragments. Numerous ME approaches have produced several definitions of method parts. Different in nature, these fragments have nevertheless some common disadvantages: lack of implementation tools, insufficient standardization effort, and so on. On the whole, the observed drawbacks are related to the shortage of usage orientation. We have proceeded to an in-depth analysis of existing method fragments within a comparison framework in order to identify their drawbacks. We suggest overcoming them by an improvement of the "method service" concept. In this paper, the method service is defined through the service paradigm applied to a specific method fragment – chunk. A discussion on the possibility to develop a unique representation of method fragment completes our contribution.
    [Paper]

  8. S.J.B.A. Hoppenbrouwers, P. Van Bommel, and A. Jarvinen. Method Engineering as Game Design: an Emerging HCI Perspective on Methods and CASE Tools. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 97-111, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    In the last half decade, there has been increasing interest in the process of information systems modeling, mostly focusing on im- provement of quality, efficiency, and control. While generic guidelines and phasing have been explored to a considerable extent, we are still a long way removed from in-depth understanding, full support, and adequate tooling with respect to operational modeling processes. Building on existing work in modeling methods and method engineering, we propose to expand the scope of modeling process research by taking a Human-Computer Interaction approach, viewing (situational) methods and their tool support, in combination with participants in operational process enactment, as an operational interaction system. More in particular, we discuss the merits of using the Game Metaphor as a clarifying and goal-setting view on the design of such interaction systems. Thus we approach Method Engineering as Game Design.
    [Paper]

  9. J. Krogstie. Using EEML for Combined Goal and Process Oriented Modeling: Evaluation through a Case Study. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 112-129, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    In organizations, goals and rules on different levels ranging from visions, to strategies, tactics, and operational goals have been expressed for a long time. In the information systems field, the interest on goals and rules has come from two directions. A) Business goals for use in requirements specification. B) Rule-based (expert) systems, focusing on automation of rule-execution. Using the modeling language EEML we are able to bridge these usage areas, and link business and executable rules with more traditional process modeling. The paper presents the use of this technique through a case study with the Norwegian State Loan fund. The results from the case are evaluated using SEQUAL, a semiotic quality framework for the evaluation of models, modeling languages and modeling environments. The result from the evaluation is promising in addressing the diverse needs of goal, rule and process modeling in analysis and design of information systems.
    [Paper]

  10. A. Sturm. Guiding System Modelers in Multi View Environments: A Domain Engineering Approach. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 130-139, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Nowadays, due to system complexity, it is well understood that system analysis and design should be done at various levels of abstraction via various perspectives. This situation of multiple views over a system causes inconsistencies within the system model, which reduces the model maturity for the next stages (e.g., implementation and testing). In this paper, we address this gap by integrating two approaches from the area of domain analysis: feature modeling and the Application-based DOmain Modeling Approach (ADOM). Using the integrated approach we provide the system developers with guidelines of how to construct a multi-view system model in a way that the various views will be synchronized and adhered with the desired specification. In this paper we adopt UML as the modeling language and demonstrate the usage of the proposed method on multi view UML based model.
    [Paper]

  11. B. Moros, C. Vicente-Chicote, and A. Toval. Metamodeling Variability to Enable Requirements Reuse. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 140-154, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) is recognized as a very promising approach to deal with software complexity. The Requirements Engineering community should be aware and take part of the Model-Driven revolution, enabling and promoting the integration of requirements into the MDSD life-cycle. As a first step to reach that goal, this paper proposes REMM, a Requirements Engineering MetaModel, which provides variability modeling mechanisms to enable requirements reuse. In addition, this paper also presents the REMM-Studio graphical requirements modeling tool, aimed at easing the definition of complex requirements models. This tool enables the specification of (1) catalogs of reusable requirements models (modeling for reuse facet of the tool), and (2) specific product requirements by reusing previously defined requirements models (modeling by reuse facet of the tool).
    [Paper]

  12. G. McLeod. (Meta) Meta Model Extensions for Manageability of Large Scale Collaborative Modeling. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 155-163, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    There is ample evidence to suggest that collaborative modeling offers significant advantages over modeling carried out by individuals. Collaborative modeling can be achieved by workshops and other interactive techniques. Recently there has been increasing interest in supporting collaborative modeling with web and repository based tools, especially where the desired participants are separated by distance and time zones and potentially language. This paper introduces and formalises some constructs and extensions to meta models (and meta meta models) which have been found useful in enhancing the usefulness of large scale collaborative modeling tools and the manageability of the models employed in support of enterprise architecture management. Issues addressed include: subject domain, ownership, authority, context, time, version, status, multiple opinions, user groups/roles, multiple languages and avoiding information overload.
    [Paper]

  13. H. Kaindl. What is an Aspect in Aspect-oriented Requirements Engineering? In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 164-170, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Addressing the issue of crosscutting concerns within a software sys- tem, the notion of an aspect has been introduced, first for so-called Aspect- Oriented Programming (AOP) and then, more generally, for Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD). Unfortunately, this notion is used with two different meanings: one as a synonym for “crosscutting concern”, and the other as a means to deal with a crosscutting concern within the software. Later, this notion has been carried over to so-called Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engi- neering (AORE). This raises questions about the meaning(s) of an aspect in this context, and about the relationship of this notion in AORE and the same notion in AOP. We try to answer these questions and argue to define an aspect as a means to deal with crosscutting concerns, and not as a synonym of “crosscutting concern”. Most importantly, an aspect in AORE is not necessarily related to an aspect within the software.
    [Paper]

  14. J. Stirna and M. Kirikova. Integrating Agile Modeling with Participative Enterprise Modeling. In T.A. Halpin, H.A. Proper, and J. Krogstie, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference, pages 171-184, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008, 2008.
    Agile Modeling (AM) provides a set of best practices of “light-weight” modeling to support the modeling process on a macro level within the agile development teams. At the core of AM is close collaboration with stakeholders which is similar to participative Enterprise Modeling (EM). Hence, the objective of this paper is to analyze the potential of using EM in agile development projects to address some of the existing challenges of agile projects. We analyze the objectives and compatibility of artifacts of AM and EM, compatibility of Agile Model Driven Development and the EM process, as well as the specifics the EM process and the tool support.
    [Paper]

Acknowledgements

Apart from the contribution by paper authors, the quality of this workshop depends on no small way on the generous contribution of time and effort by the program committee. Their work is greatly appreciated. We also express our sincere thanks to the CAiSE organizing committee, especially the CAiSE Workshop organizers.

Workshop Co-Chairs

  1. Terry Halpin, Northface University, USA
  2. John Krogstie, SINTEF and Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Norway
  3. Erik Proper, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Workshop Steering Committee

  1. Keng Siau, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
  2. Terry Halpin, Northface University, USA
  3. John Krogstie, SINTEF and Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Norway

Program Committee

  1. Wil van der Aalst, The Netherlands
  2. Antonia Albani, The Netherlands
  3. Herman Balsters, The Netherlands
  4. Akhilesh Bajaj, USA
  5. Richard Baskerville, USA
  6. Ann Becker, USA
  7. Guiseppe Berio, Italy
  8. Ilia Bider, Sweden
  9. Nacer Boudjilda, France
  10. Sjaak Brinkkemper, The Netherlands
  11. Andy Carver, USA
  12. Olga De Troyer, Belgium
  13. David Embley, USA
  14. John Erickson, USA
  15. Peter Fettke, Germany
  16. Ulrich Frank, Germany
  17. Andrew Gemino, Canada
  18. Peter Green, Australia
  19. Remigijus Gustas, Sweden
  20. Wolfgang Hesse, Germany
  21. Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, The Netherlands
  22. Paul Johannesson, Sweden
  23. Peri Loucopoulos, UK
  24. Kalle Lyytinen, USA
  25. Graham McLeod, South Africa
  26. Robert Meersman, Belgium
  27. Jan Mendling, Australia
  28. Tony Morgan, USA
  29. Michele Missikoff, Italy
  30. Sjir Nijssen, The Netherlands
  31. Andreas L. Opdahl, Norway
  32. Hervé Panetto, France
  33. Barbara Pernici, Italy
  34. Anne Persson, Sweden
  35. Michaél Petit, Belgium
  36. Jolita Ralyté, Switzerland
  37. Sudha Ram, USA
  38. John Roddick, Australia
  39. Colette Rolland, France
  40. Michael Rosemann, Australia
  41. Matti Rossi, Finland
  42. Kurt Sandkuhl, Sweden
  43. Peretz Shoval, Israel
  44. Guttorm Sindre, Norway
  45. Il-Yeol Song, USA
  46. Carson Woo, Canada
  47. Martin Zelm, Germany
  48. Pär Ågerfalk, Sweden

Additional reviewers

  1. Inge van de Weerd, The Netherlands
  2. Marco Spruit, The Netherlands