BPMN

now browsing by tag

 
actor agile architecture BCE BPMN business architecture Business Continuity Management CIM courses design enterprise architecture extend ICONIX impact analysis include inheritance learn MBSE MDA MOF MVC objectt oriented omg.org OOAD patterns PIM practice PSM SBVR skills SysML system system design Systems analysis and design trace UML use case
 

Posted by: | on March 19, 2024

Mechanism of operation vs. system model

Most often in the course of analysis we use the term model, less often mechanism. The thing is that the term mechanism appears when we want to explain something, e.g. “the mechanism of generating a discount on an invoice”. The thing is that the term mechanism appears when we want to explain something, e.g. “the mechanism for generating a discount on an invoice”. But here beware! A model (block diagrams, formulae, etc.) is documentation, a copyrighted description. The mechanism is what we understood by reading these documentation (model), because the mechanism is protected know-how. The content of the application to the Patent Office is the model (description), but what we patent is the mechanism invented/developed.

Source: Mechanism of operation vs. system model – Jarosław Żeliński IT-Consulting

Posted in Models and architecture | No Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted by: | on October 30, 2020

Synthesis of MOF, MDA, PIM, MVC, and BCE Notations and Patterns

Exactly one year ago my first paper in US ? (see liflet)

Abstract

Publications, including academic handbooks, contain numerous inconsistencies in the descriptions of applications of architectural methods and patterns hidden under the abbreviations such as MOF, MDA, PIM, MVC, BCE. An efficient analysis and the following software design, particularly when we are speaking of projects realized in large teams, requires standardization of the production process and the applied patterns and frameworks. This study attempted to sort out the system of notations describing this process and used to describe architectural patterns. Analysis of key notations?MOF and MDA, patterns MVC and BCE?was carried out, and a consistent system combining them into a whole was created.Chapter Preview Top

Background

In this study, Object Management Group notation systems have been used. MOF (Meta Object Facility) specification describes three abstraction levels: M1, M2, M3 and level M0 that is real items (OMG MOF, 2016). M0 is a real system, M1 level is abstraction of the items of this system (its model). Level M2 comprises of relationships between classes of these objects (names of their sets) that is system metamodel. M3 level is a meta-metamodel describing the modeling method with the use of named elements with specified semantics and syntactic.

The analysis and design process is based on the MDA (Model Driven Architecture) specifications. This process has three phases understood as creation of subsequent models: CIM (Computation Independent Model), PIM (Platform Independent Model), PSM (Platform Specific Model) and code creation phase. The CIM model is documented with the use of BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation) (OMG BPMN, 2013) and SBVR notation (Semantic of Business Vocabulary and Rules) (OMG SBVR, 2017). These are, respectively: business process models and notation models and business rules. PIM and PSM models are documented with the use of UML notation (Unified Modeling Language) (OMG UML, 2017).

Between CIM and PIM models, determination of the list of application services (system reactions) occurs, whose realization mechanism is described by PIM model. The standard pattern used for modeling application architecture is MVC pattern. Component Model of this pattern is modeled with the use of the BCE architectural pattern.

Semiotics vs. UML

Semiotics, as a science dealing with symbols and their meanings, provides us with the tool enabling determination of relationships between an object (thing), its name (expression) and definition of notation represented by the name (or sign, meaning). These relationships are referred to as the semiotic triangle. Figure 1 represents this triangle on the left (OMG SBVR, 2017).

The UML notation (OMG UML, 2017) operates instance classifier and class notations. To the right, Figure 1 demonstrates an equivalent to semiotic triangle expressed with those terms.

The UML notation further operates the general structure notation, which is the content of each correct UML diagram. Structures may express a conceptual model (Namespace) or model (also metamodel) of system architecture (e.g. software) in the form of a chart (Architecture).

Synthesis of MOF, MDA, PIM, MVC, and BCE Notations and Patterns

Jaroslaw Zelinski (Independent Researcher)
Source Title: Applications and Approaches to Object-Oriented Software Design: Emerging Research and OpportunitiesCopyright: ? 2020 |Pages: 12DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2142-7.ch003

Posted in Models and architecture | No Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: | on September 21, 2020

Business continuity management – how to model it

Business Continuity Management (BCM) projects are really difficult . The main reason is the system complexity: many documents, many tasks, many processes, many associations between all of them. Each task connected to one or more business application. Each documents stored in different database. The applications are integrated. Everything works like one chain ? but one broken link can crash everything .

How we can managing risks? We can create Business Architecture model and expand this up to Enterprise Architecture, as a model for trace process, data, IT system and infrastructure.

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_architecture_framework)

How we prepare Enterprise Architecture model? Simple version: prepare business model :

Transform this to use case model (application services) :

Build matrix for trace mapping control :

Trace (map) use case to software components :

We have completed model, we can do impact analysis, e.g. what happens and where, when the Ruter go down:

Sometimes we ask: what does the possibility of carrying out the Package Goods task depend on?

How can we do this and what tools do we need? Welcome in my courses, hire me …

References

Laender, A. H. F., Liddle, S. W., & Storey, V. C. (Eds.). (2000). Conceptual modeling - ER 2000: 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, October 2000. Springer.
Hause, M. (2006). The SysML modelling language. Fifteenth European Systems Engineering Conference, 9, 1–12.
Pollack, S. L., Hicks, H. T., & Harrison, W. J. (1975). Tablice decyzyjne. PWN.
Zimmermann, D. A., & Pautasso, D. C. (2020). On the Evolvability Assurance of Microservices: Metrics, Scenarios, and Patterns. 347.
Marian Przełęcki. (1993). Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk empirycznych. Filozofia Nauki, 1(2–3), 379–387.
Russell, B. (2007). An inquiry into meaning and truth. Spokesman.
Russell, B. (2011). Badania dotyczące znaczenia i prawdy. Wydawnictwo WAM.
Biłat, A. (2018). Metaontologia: o naturze pojęć i teorii ontologicznych (Copernicus Center Press, Ed.). Copernicus Center Press.
Marek Łabuzek. (2003). Wykorzystanie metamodelowania do specyfikacji ontologii znaczenia opisów rzeczywistości. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal. https://www.e-informatyka.pl/index.php/pimio/inzynieria-wymagan/wykorzystanie-metamodelowania-do-specyfikacji-ontologii-znaczenia-opisow-rzeczywistosci/
Lamentowicz, W., & Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. (2017). Status prawny i dynamika porządku prawnego. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Madkour, M., Butler, K., Mercer, E., Bahrami, A., & Tao, C. (2020). Semantic based model of Conceptual Work Products for formal verification of complex interactive systems. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2008.01623, 11.
Nill, C., & Sikka, V. (n.d.). Modeling Software Applications and User Interfaces Using Metaphorical Entities. 4.
Larson, H. (2020). Agent-Based Modeling of Locust Foraging and Social Behavior. 47.
Floyd, C., & Ukena, S. (2005). On Designing Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing in Communities of Practice. CAiSE Workshops (2), 559–569.
uml-diagrams.org. (n.d.). Examples of UML composite structure diagrams - Bank ATM, Apache Tomcat 7 web server, Observer design pattern. [UML Diagrams]. UML Composite Structure Diagram Examples. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from https://www.uml-diagrams.org/composite-structure-examples.html
Vanthienen, J. A. N., & Dries, E. (1992). Developments in decision tables: Evolution, applications and a proposed standard. DTEW Research Report 9227.
King, P. J. (1967). Decision tables. The Computer Journal, 10(2), 135–142.
Vanthienen, J., & Wets, G. (1992). Mapping Decision Tables to Expert System Shells: An Implementation in AionDS. Onderzoeksrapport 9228.
Vasilecas, O., & Smaizys, A. (2007). Business Rule Based Configuration Management and Software System Implementation Using Decision Tables. Local Proceedings of ADBIS, 2007, 27–37.
Anupama Yk. (2015). Decision Table Based Testing. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 3(3), 1298–1301. https://doi.org/10.17762/ijritcc2321-8169.150388
Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. - Kodeks cywilny. (1964). http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19640160093
Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 1993 r. o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji. (1993). http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19930470211
Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. (1994). http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19940240083
Unmesh Joshi. (2020, August 4). Patterns of Distributed Systems [Martinfowler.com]. Martinfowler.Com. https://martinfowler.com/articles/patterns-of-distributed-systems/
Mamatsashvili, G.-G., Ponichtera, K., Małkiński, M., Ganzha, M., & Paprzycki, M. (2020). Semantic-Based System for Exercise Programming and Dietary Advice. In L. C. Jain, M. Virvou, V. Piuri, & V. E. Balas (Eds.), Advances in Bioinformatics, Multimedia, and Electronics Circuits and Signals (Vol. 1064, pp. 105–120). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0339-9_10
Snook, C., & Butler, M. (n.d.). UML-B AND EVENT-B: AN INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGES AND TOOLS. 6.
Butler, M. (2009). Decomposition Structures for Event-B. In M. Leuschel & H. Wehrheim (Eds.), Integrated Formal Methods (Vol. 5423, pp. 20–38). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_2
Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Hoang, T. S., Mehta, F., & Voisin, L. (2010). Rodin: an open toolset for modelling and reasoning in Event-B. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 12(6), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-010-0145-y
Calvaresi, D., Schumacher, M., & Calbimonte, J.-P. (2020). Agent-based Modeling for Ontology-driven Analysis of Patient Trajectories. Journal of Medical Systems, 44(9), 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01620-8
Anne Francine Martins, Costa Affonso, R., Tamayo, S., Lamouri, S., & Baldy Ngayo, C. (2015). Relationships between national culture and Lean Management: A literature Review. 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/IESM.2015.7380183
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (2004). Modne bzdury. O Nadużywaniu Pojęć z Zakresu Nauk Ścis\lych Przez Postmodernistycznych Intelektualistów.
Xu, S., Chen, X., Xie, J., Rahman, S., Wang, J., Hui, H., & Chen, T. (2020). Agent-based modeling and simulation of the electricity market with residential demand response. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2019.01750
Leech, G. (1983). Semantics: the study of meaning (Second edition). Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.
Enterprise Architecture Training in Aberdeen. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://www.nobleprog.co.uk/enterprise-architecture/training/aberdeen
Graics, B., Molnár, V., Vörös, A., Majzik, I., & Varró, D. (2020). Mixed-semantics composition of statecharts for the component-based design of reactive systems. Software and Systems Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-020-00806-5
Veizaga, A., Alferez, M., Torre, D., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., & Pitskhelauri, E. (2020). Leveraging Natural-language Requirements for Deriving  Better Acceptance Criteria from Models. 11.
Sanchez Cuadrado, J., Burgueno, L., Wimmer, M., & Vallecillo, A. (2020). Efficient execution of ATL model transformations using static analysis and parallelism. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.3011388
Zhang, X., Dunn, S., Coates, G., & Hall, J. (2020). Emergency Evacuation from a Multi- floor Building using Agent-based Modeling. 12.
Bodine, E. N., Panoff, R. M., Voit, E. O., & Weisstein, A. E. (2020). Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation in Mathematics and Biology Education. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 82(8), 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-020-00778-z
Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Clarendon Press.
Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. (2011). Cloud computing — The business perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.006
Simpson, T. W., Poplinski, J. D., Koch, P. N., & Allen, J. K. (2001). Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Engineering with Computers, 17(2), 129–150.
Mesjasz, M. M., Ganzha, M., & Paprzycki, M. (2020). Modeling cyber-physical systems – a GliderAgent 3.0 perspective. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-019-00588-3
Kogut, P., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Dutra, M., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., & Smith, J. (2002). UML for ontology development. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 17(1), 61–64.
James Human, & Azam M. Madni. (2014). Integrated Agent-based modeling and optimization in complex systems analysis | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 818–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.03.097
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.
Götz, S., Fehn, A., Rohde, F., & Kühn, T. (2020). Model-driven Software Engineering for Construction Engineering: Quo Vadis? The Journal of Object Technology, 19(2), 2:1. https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2020.19.2.a2
Gašević, D., Djurić, D., Devedzic, V., & Gašević, D. (2009). Model driven engineering and ontology development (2nd ed). Springer.
Cushing, R., Putra, G. H. H., Koulouzis, S., Belloum, A., Bubak, M., & de Laat, C. (2013). Distributed Computing on an Ensemble of Browsers. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(5), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2013.3
BPMDS (Workshop), Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zdravkovic, J., Gulden, J., Schmidt, R., EMMSAD (Workshop), & CAiSE (Conference). (2019). Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling: 20th International Conference, BPMDS 2019, 24th International Conference, EMMSAD 2019, held at CAiSE 2019, Rome, Italy, June 3-4, 2019 : proceedings. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5926895

Posted in Models and architecture, Visual-Paradigm | No Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,