Transformation of Semantic Analysis to Com+ Business Requirements Using MDA Approach
ABSTRACT
Model Driven Architecture (MDA) is one of many competing techniques that have the potential to contribute towards the development of better software systems. However the business support at Computation-Independent Model (CIM) level does not necessarily allow the development teams to utilize its power and it might become difficult to bridge the gap between analysis, design and implementation phases. Consequently, the clients usually do not get what they want. Semantic Analysis expressed as ontology charts offers a very sound business analytical method that can be used to overcome these problems. The aim of this paper is, with the help of Meta Object Facility (MOF) meta-model, to advocate the use of Semantic Analysis and to present a method of transforming it to the Component Object Model (COM+) architecture, which is the Microsoft standard for developing application programs.
Model Driven Architecture (MDA) is one of many competing techniques that have the potential to contribute towards the development of better software systems. However the business support at Computation-Independent Model (CIM) level does not necessarily allow the development teams to utilize its power and it might become difficult to bridge the gap between analysis, design and implementation phases. Consequently, the clients usually do not get what they want. Semantic Analysis expressed as ontology charts offers a very sound business analytical method that can be used to overcome these problems. The aim of this paper is, with the help of Meta Object Facility (MOF) meta-model, to advocate the use of Semantic Analysis and to present a method of transforming it to the Component Object Model (COM+) architecture, which is the Microsoft standard for developing application programs.
KEYWORDS
Organizational Semiotics, MEASUR’s Semantic Analysis, Ontology Chart, Component Diagram, COM+
Organizational Semiotics, MEASUR’s Semantic Analysis, Ontology Chart, Component Diagram, COM+
Cite this paper
nullM. Nistazakis, G. Tsaramirsis, M. Yamin and N. Zhang, "Transformation of Semantic Analysis to Com+ Business Requirements Using MDA Approach," Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2010, pp. 67-71. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.31007.
nullM. Nistazakis, G. Tsaramirsis, M. Yamin and N. Zhang, "Transformation of Semantic Analysis to Com+ Business Requirements Using MDA Approach," Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2010, pp. 67-71. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.31007.
References
[1] BCS, “The challenges of complex it projects,” The report of a working group from The Royal Academy of Engineering and The British Computer Society, April 2004. [2] OMG, Meta ObjectFacility (MOF) Specification, Object Management Group, 2003, http://doc.omg.org/formal/02- 04-03. [3] S. Sendall and W. Kozaczynski, “Model transformation: The heart and soul of model-driven software development,” IEEE Software, IEEE Computer Society, October 2003. [4] E. Seidewitz, “What models mean,” IEEE Softw, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 26–32, September 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MS.2003. 1231147. [5] A. Kleppe, J Warmer, and W. Bast, MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture(TM): Practice and Promise The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, 2000. [6] I. Poernomo, A type theoretic framework for formal metamodelling, in R. Reussner and J. Stafford and C. Szyperski (Eds.), Architecting Systems with Trustworthy Components, Springer, LNCS, Vol. 3930, pp. 262–298, 2006. [7] Y. Ades, N. Karimi Sani, M. Nistazakis, I. Poernomo, G. Tsaramirsis, and M. Yamin “Implementing SNF compliant software,” Proceedings of ICISO’09, ISBN: 978-0-9806057-2-3, pp. 71, 2009. [8] Y. Ades, F. Ben-Oman, I. Poernomo, and G. Tsaramirsis, “Mapping ontology charts to class diagrams,” ICOS’07, 2007. [9] K. Liu, “Semiotics in information systems engineering,” Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521 593352, Microsoft, COM+, 2000, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms685978(VS.85).aspx. [10] OMG, MDA guide version 1.0.1, 2000, www.omg.org/ docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf. [11] R. Stamper, “MEASUR—Methods of theory and analysis of information systems,” Proceedings of IWRA, pp. 135– 160, 2008.
[1] BCS, “The challenges of complex it projects,” The report of a working group from The Royal Academy of Engineering and The British Computer Society, April 2004. [2] OMG, Meta ObjectFacility (MOF) Specification, Object Management Group, 2003, http://doc.omg.org/formal/02- 04-03. [3] S. Sendall and W. Kozaczynski, “Model transformation: The heart and soul of model-driven software development,” IEEE Software, IEEE Computer Society, October 2003. [4] E. Seidewitz, “What models mean,” IEEE Softw, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 26–32, September 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MS.2003. 1231147. [5] A. Kleppe, J Warmer, and W. Bast, MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture(TM): Practice and Promise The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, 2000. [6] I. Poernomo, A type theoretic framework for formal metamodelling, in R. Reussner and J. Stafford and C. Szyperski (Eds.), Architecting Systems with Trustworthy Components, Springer, LNCS, Vol. 3930, pp. 262–298, 2006. [7] Y. Ades, N. Karimi Sani, M. Nistazakis, I. Poernomo, G. Tsaramirsis, and M. Yamin “Implementing SNF compliant software,” Proceedings of ICISO’09, ISBN: 978-0-9806057-2-3, pp. 71, 2009. [8] Y. Ades, F. Ben-Oman, I. Poernomo, and G. Tsaramirsis, “Mapping ontology charts to class diagrams,” ICOS’07, 2007. [9] K. Liu, “Semiotics in information systems engineering,” Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521 593352, Microsoft, COM+, 2000, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms685978(VS.85).aspx. [10] OMG, MDA guide version 1.0.1, 2000, www.omg.org/ docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf. [11] R. Stamper, “MEASUR—Methods of theory and analysis of information systems,” Proceedings of IWRA, pp. 135– 160, 2008.