Cross-viewpoint consistency in open distributed processing

Formalization of the RM-ODP foundations based on the Triune Continuum Paradigm

“…Note that as we explained in Section 2.1, due to the nature of denotational and Tarski's declarative semantics [32], exactly the same formalization can be expressed using other formal description techniques. 6 The formalization has two parts: declarations of the concepts (in terms of elements belonging to sets and possible relations between sets) and definitions of the concepts (defining logical constraints that members of the declared sets should obey). Section 4.1 presents the declarations and Section 4.2 presents the definitions.…”

“…Bowman et al [7] considered a set of general ODP requirements and elaborated on the requirements for specific ODP viewpoints. Further research [5,6,24] defined a general meaning of the specification consistency in the context of the RM-ODP viewpoints. Based on these papers, relating formalisms used for different viewpoints became a standard approach for ODP formalization work.…”

“…-(1) space interval, (2) space outside the space interval and (3) point in space as the boundary between the first two spatial concepts; -(4) time interval, (5) time outside the time interval and (6) point in time as the boundary between the first two temporal concepts.…”

Formalization of the RM-ODP foundations based on the Triune Continuum Paradigm

“…Note that as we explained in Section 2.1, due to the nature of denotational and Tarski's declarative semantics [32], exactly the same formalization can be expressed using other formal description techniques. 6 The formalization has two parts: declarations of the concepts (in terms of elements belonging to sets and possible relations between sets) and definitions of the concepts (defining logical constraints that members of the declared sets should obey). Section 4.1 presents the declarations and Section 4.2 presents the definitions.…”

“…Bowman et al [7] considered a set of general ODP requirements and elaborated on the requirements for specific ODP viewpoints. Further research [5,6,24] defined a general meaning of the specification consistency in the context of the RM-ODP viewpoints. Based on these papers, relating formalisms used for different viewpoints became a standard approach for ODP formalization work.…”

“…-(1) space interval, (2) space outside the space interval and (3) point in space as the boundary between the first two spatial concepts; -(4) time interval, (5) time outside the time interval and (6) point in time as the boundary between the first two temporal concepts.…”

A Faceted Approach to Service Specification

“…There are also similarities between facets and the viewpoint proposed in the Open Distributed Processing reference model (RM-ODP) [15]. Although proposed for use in component-based development [18], RM-ODP offers a fairly rigid framework that aims for completeness in its domain and cross-viewpoint consistency [2], rather than the flexible incorporation of developing standards offered by facets.…”

Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues

“…§ a development compatibility rule − These are rules which require that it must be possible to construct at least one model that develops further two or more other models or model elements and conforms to the restrictions which apply to both of them. This model depending on the assumed development relation might be an implementation model (Bowman et al, 1996). An example of such a rule is the existence of a common unification of two abstract data types (Boiten et al, 1999).…”

Formalization of the RM-ODP foundations based on the Triune Continuum Paradigm

“…Note that as we explained in Section 2.1, due to the nature of denotational and Tarski's declarative semantics [32], exactly the same formalization can be expressed using other formal description techniques. 6 The formalization has two parts: declarations of the concepts (in terms of elements belonging to sets and possible relations between sets) and definitions of the concepts (defining logical constraints that members of the declared sets should obey). Section 4.1 presents the declarations and Section 4.2 presents the definitions.…”

“…Bowman et al [7] considered a set of general ODP requirements and elaborated on the requirements for specific ODP viewpoints. Further research [5,6,24] defined a general meaning of the specification consistency in the context of the RM-ODP viewpoints. Based on these papers, relating formalisms used for different viewpoints became a standard approach for ODP formalization work.…”

“…-(1) space interval, (2) space outside the space interval and (3) point in space as the boundary between the first two spatial concepts; -(4) time interval, (5) time outside the time interval and (6) point in time as the boundary between the first two temporal concepts.…”

A Faceted Approach to Service Specification

“…There are also similarities between facets and the viewpoint proposed in the Open Distributed Processing reference model (RM-ODP) [15]. Although proposed for use in component-based development [18], RM-ODP offers a fairly rigid framework that aims for completeness in its domain and cross-viewpoint consistency [2], rather than the flexible incorporation of developing standards offered by facets.…”

Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues

“…§ a development compatibility rule − These are rules which require that it must be possible to construct at least one model that develops further two or more other models or model elements and conforms to the restrictions which apply to both of them. This model depending on the assumed development relation might be an implementation model (Bowman et al, 1996). An example of such a rule is the existence of a common unification of two abstract data types (Boiten et al, 1999).…”

Formalization of the RM-ODP foundations based on the Triune Continuum Paradigm

“…Note that as we explained in Section 2.1, due to the nature of denotational and Tarski's declarative semantics [32], exactly the same formalization can be expressed using other formal description techniques. 6 The formalization has two parts: declarations of the concepts (in terms of elements belonging to sets and possible relations between sets) and definitions of the concepts (defining logical constraints that members of the declared sets should obey). Section 4.1 presents the declarations and Section 4.2 presents the definitions.…”

“…Bowman et al [7] considered a set of general ODP requirements and elaborated on the requirements for specific ODP viewpoints. Further research [5,6,24] defined a general meaning of the specification consistency in the context of the RM-ODP viewpoints. Based on these papers, relating formalisms used for different viewpoints became a standard approach for ODP formalization work.…”

“…-(1) space interval, (2) space outside the space interval and (3) point in space as the boundary between the first two spatial concepts; -(4) time interval, (5) time outside the time interval and (6) point in time as the boundary between the first two temporal concepts.…”

A Faceted Approach to Service Specification

“…There are also similarities between facets and the viewpoint proposed in the Open Distributed Processing reference model (RM-ODP) [15]. Although proposed for use in component-based development [18], RM-ODP offers a fairly rigid framework that aims for completeness in its domain and cross-viewpoint consistency [2], rather than the flexible incorporation of developing standards offered by facets.…”

Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues

“…§ a development compatibility rule − These are rules which require that it must be possible to construct at least one model that develops further two or more other models or model elements and conforms to the restrictions which apply to both of them. This model depending on the assumed development relation might be an implementation model (Bowman et al, 1996). An example of such a rule is the existence of a common unification of two abstract data types (Boiten et al, 1999).…”