Making Explicit Some Implicit i* Language Decisions

López, Lidia; Franch, Xavier; Marco, Jordi

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24606-7_6

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, we propose to c) to provide fic concepts are aligned. The application of these c) Integration of concepts aligned under specific conditions (A≅C) * metamodel which wiki version taken as reference in this work [22] and integrated metamodel is presented in …”

Section: Fig 7 Deciding Which Metaclasses To Keepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating the Goal and Business Process Perspectives in Information System Analysis

Ruiz

Costal

España

et al. 2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There are several motivations to promote investment and scientific effort in the integration of intentional and operational perspectives: organisational reengineering, continuous improvement of business processes, alignment among complementary analysis perspectives, information traceability, etc. In this paper we propose the integration of two modelling languages that support the creation of goal and business process models: the i* goal-oriented modelling method and Communication Analysis, a communication-oriented business process modelling method. We describe the methodological integration of the two modelling methods with the aim of fulfilling several criteria: i) to rely on appropriate theories; ii) to provide abstract and concrete syntaxes; iii) to provide scenarios of application; and iv) to develop tool support. We provide guidelines for using the two modelling methods in a top-down analysis scenario. We also present an illustrative case that demonstrates the feasibility of the approach.Keywords: modelling language, requirements engineering, goal modelling, business process modelling, ontological analysis, metamodel integration IntroductionOrganisations are aware of the importance of evolving to keep pace with changes in the market, technology, environment, law, etc.[1]. As a result, continuous improvement and reengineering have become common practices in information system engineering. Understanding organisations and their needs for change often requires several interrelated perspectives [2][3]. The information system engineering community has contributed a number of modelling languages that are typically oriented towards a specific perspective, requiring approaches to their integration [4]. In this paper, we focus on extending a business process perspective with intentional aspects of organisations. Business process modelling languages provide primitives to specify work practice (i.e. activities, temporal constraints and resources). Despite being widely accepted that processes are means to achieve organisational goals [5], process models give little attention to the strategic dimension [6]. The analysis, prioritization and selection of organisational strategies are the scope of intentional modelling languages, which focus on the business roles, their goals and their relationships. This is a pre-print draft of the following article published by Springer (who holds the copyright): M. Ruiz, D. Costal, S. España, X. Franch, and Ó. Pastor, "Integrating the goal and business process perspectives in information system analysis," presented at the 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2014), Thessaloniki, Greece, 2014.Business processes and goals are intrinsically interdependent [7] and several works provide detailed arguments in favour of combining both perspectives: (i) An integrated approach allows understanding the motivation for processes [6]. (ii) In the opposite direction, goals may be used to guide process design [8]. (iii) Traceability is enhanced, whi...

show abstract

Section: Fig 7 Deciding Which Metaclasses To Keepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating the Goal and Business Process Perspectives in Information System Analysis

Ruiz

Costal

España

et al. 2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both cases, the IE that is being subject of the operation is further decomposed; additionally, in FTA, some IEs contribute to two softgoals inherited from the superactor, shown also in dotted lines to indicate that they are same as in the superactor. [2]  iemainIEs(a): sat(ie, M), since main elements do not change:…”

Section: Case 1 Ie Extensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…sat(a', M')  iemainIEs(a'): sat(ie, M'), applying Definition 2 over a' [2]  iemainIEs(a): sat(ie, M), since ie s is not added as main IE [3]  sat(a, M), applying Definition 2 over a [4]  sat(b, M), applying the IH [5]  iemainIEs(b): sat(ie, M), applying Definition 2 over b [6]  iemainIEs(b): sat(ie, M'), since b is the same in M and M' [7]  sat(b, M'), applying Definition 2 over b CASE 2. Main IEs addition.…”

Section: Induction Hypothesis (Ih)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is characterised by a core whose constructs, although subject of discussion in some details [2], are quite agreed by the community. A rough classification of the core distinguishes six main concepts: actors, intentional elements (IE), dependencies, boundaries, IE links and actor association links [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only notable difference is that since the new IE is added as main element, some equivalence needs to be converted into implication. For instance, in the IBC, step [2] changes into:…”

Section: Theorem the Operation Extendactorwithmainie(m A Ie New ) mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Specialization in i* Strategic Rationale Diagrams

López

Franch

Marco

2012

Conceptual Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The specialization relationship is offered by the i* modeling language through the is-a construct defined over actors (a subactor is-a superactor). Although the overall meaning of this construct is highly intuitive, its semantics when it comes to the fine-grained level of strategic rationale (SR) diagrams is not defined, hampering seriously its appropriate use. In this report we provide a formal definition of the specialization relationship at the level of i* SR diagrams. We root our proposal over existing work in conceptual modeling in general, and object-orientation in particular. Also, we use the results of a survey conducted in the i* community that provides some hints about what i* modelers expect from specialization. As a consequence of this twofold analysis, we identify, define and specify two specialization operations, extension and refinement, that can be applied over SR diagrams. Correctness conditions for them are also clearly stated. The result of our work is a formal proposal of specialization for i* that allows its use in a well-defined manner.

show abstract

Visual and Ontological Modeling and Analysis Support for Extended Enterprise Models

Sunkle

Rathod

2015

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making Explicit Some Implicit i* Language Decisions

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Integrating the Goal and Business Process Perspectives in Information System Analysis

Integrating the Goal and Business Process Perspectives in Information System Analysis

Specialization in i* Strategic Rationale Diagrams

Visual and Ontological Modeling and Analysis Support for Extended Enterprise Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About