A Look Behind Conceptual Modeling Constructs in Information System Analysis and Design

Abstract

Information systems can be conceptualized in a number of ways. Most methodologies propose to analyze separately process and data semantics by projecting them into totally different diagram types. This system analysis and design tradition is very strong in most modeling approaches such as structured analysis as well as object-oriented design. Structural and behavioral aspects are complementary. They cannot be analyzed in isolation. Lack of a conceptual modeling approach, which can be used for verification of semantic integrity among various types of diagrams, is the cornerstone of frustration for information system architects. Inconsistency, incompleteness and ambiguity of conceptual views create difficulties in verification and validation of technical system architectures by business experts, who determine the organizational strategies. Consequently, the traditional information system methodologies are not able to bridge a communication gap among business experts and IT-system designers. Various interpretations of semantic relations in conceptual modeling approaches make the system analysis and design process more art than science. It creates difficulties to formulate comprehensible principles of decomposition and separation of concerns. Unambiguous definition of aggregation and generalization is necessary for breaking down information system functionality into coherent non-overlapping components. This article concentrates on conceptual modeling enhancements, which help to avoid semantic integrity problems in conceptualizations on various levels of abstraction. The presented conceptual modeling approach is based on a single type of diagram, which can be used for reasoning on semantic integrity between business process and data across organizational and technical system boundaries.

Modeling Approach for Integration and Evolution of Information System Conceptualizations

“…Actors are represented by subsystems that are non-overlapping in functionality. Active concepts can be related by the static dependencies such as inheritance, composition and classification (Gustas, 2010;Gustas & Gustiene, 2009;Gustas & Gustiene, 2008). The graphical notation of semantic dependencies is presented in Figure 5.…”

“…(a) A part is existence dependent on a whole, (b) If a whole has a single part, then this part has an identical lifetime with the whole, (c) If a whole has more than one part, then the creation of the first part is coincident with the creation of the whole, the creation and removal of additional parts can take place any time, but the removal of the last part is coincident with removal of the whole (Guizzardi, 2007), (d) Coincident creation and removal of a whole together with all parts is a special case of composition, (e) A part can belong to only one whole of the same type. It should be noted that the optional cases of aggregation and composition can always be transformed into this stricter type of composition with the help of special modeling techniques (Gustas, 2010).…”

“…It would be quite beneficial to explicitly capture coordinating interaction, data or value flow dependencies in interplay with the conventional conceptual modeling constructs. Interaction dependencies (Gustas, 2010) are very useful for the development of an integrated graphical representation of business process and business data. Service interaction flows are also important for the identification of essential crosscutting concerns in business processes, which span across organizational and technical system boundaries.…”

Integration of Interactive, Behavioral and Structural Aspects of Conceptual Models

“…The return review can be considered as a production action, because Review flow brings value to PC chair. Service requesters and providers are viewed as subjects or as active concepts (Gustas, 2010), which represent enterprise system components.…”

“…Composition dependency is a strict form of aggregation, which allows just either 1 or 1..* multiplicities between wholes and parts. Other cases of conventional composition are not legal in the presented modeling approach (Gustas, 2010). Composition and inheritance dependencies can be used for detection of inconsistent interaction dependencies on various levels of abstraction.…”