LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bittman, Sebastian; Barn, Balbir; Clark, Tony (2014)
Publisher: Inderscience
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Methods describe and embody a broad range of relevant knowledge of enterprises. Usually they have to account for requirements stated by a multitude of various stakeholders. These are typically those that are in charge of business related actions and those that are in charge to support such actions with an IT-Infrastructure. The statement of requirements as well as the validation of methods and in particular process models with respect to those requirements relies drastically on natural language. Natural language seems to be a substantial component to explain and to give an understanding about process models or certain aspects of it. This fact requires closing the gap between the natural language and the respective modelling language. This paper proposes argumentative method engineering for purposefully depicting design decisions and convictions for method engineering through arguments. The approach is derived from Toulmin’s Argumentation Model and explicates the process of negotiating with various stakeholders. So, a model, depicting a method, specified by means of argumentative method engineering, not just includes the claims about a certain domain, it further justifies these claims by referring to already established knowledge. While it can’t be ensured that certain requirements are considered in future project, if the reasons for design decisions of method engineering are transcribed in natural language text, but the semi- formalising of arguments regarding these methods allows such an assurance. So the argumentative approach enables the sophisticated management and reuse of knowledge during the development and extension of methods. The approach is evaluated using a case study, in which a software development method was outsourced to contractors.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] T. H. Davenport and J. E. Short. The New Industrial Engineering : Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4):11-27, 1990.
    • [2] H. R. Jorysz and F. B. Vernadat. CIM-OSA Part 1: total enterprise modelling and function view. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 3(3- 4):144-156, May 1990.
    • [3] W.M.P. van Der Aalst. Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(1):5-51, 2003.
    • [4] O.I. Lindland, G. Sindre, and A. Solvberg. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2):42-49, March 1994.
    • [5] Sjba Hoppenbrouwers, H A Proper, and T P Van Der Weide. A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In L Delcambre, C Kop, H C Mayr, J Mylopoulos, and O Pastor, editors, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, volume 3716 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 128-143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.
    • [6] Graeme Shanks, Elizabeth Tansley, and Ron Weber. Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Communications of the ACM, 46(10):85-89, October 2003.
    • [7] P. van Bommel, S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers, H. A. Proper, and T. P. van der Weide. Exploring modelling strategies in a meta-modelling context. In Robert Meersman, Zahir Tari, and Pilar Herrero, editors, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, volume 4278 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1128-1137. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, October 2006.
    • [8] John Mylopoulos, Alex Borgida, Matthias Jarke, and Manolis Koubarakis. Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(4):325-362, October 1990.
    • [9] C. Rolland and C. Proix. A natural language approach for Requirements Engineering. In Pericles Loucopoulos, editor, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, volume 593 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257-277. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992.
    • [10] Fabiano Dalpiaz, Paolo Giorgini, and John Mylopoulos. Adaptive socio-technical systems: a requirements-based approach. Requirements engineering, 18(1):1-24, 2013.
    • [11] Varsha Veerappa and Rachel Harrison. Assessing the maturity of requirements through argumentation: A good enough approach. In 2013 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pages 670-675. IEEE, November 2013.
    • [12] B. Ramesh and M. Jarke. Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(1):58-93, 2001.
    • [13] Colette Rolland and Naveen Prakash. From conceptual modelling to requirements engineering. Annals of Software Engineering, 10(1-4):151-176, January 2000.
    • [14] A. Egyed and P. Grunbacher. Automating requirements traceability: Beyond the record & replay paradigm. In Proceedings 17th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering,, pages 163-171. IEEE Comput. Soc, 2002.
    • [15] W. W. Royce. Managing the development of large software systems : Concepts and techniques. In Technical Papers of Western Electronic Show and Convention (WesCon) (Los Angeles, August 25-28, 1970), pages 328-338, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1970. IEEE Computer Society Press.
    • [16] Christian Dawson and Ray Dawson. Software Development Process Models: A Technique for Evaluation and Decision-Making. Knowledge and Process Management, pages n/a-n/a, November 2013.
    • [17] Hercules Dalianis and Paul Johannesson. Explaining Conceptual Models - Using Toulmin's argumentation model and RST. In Third International workshop on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, pages 131-140, 1998.
    • [18] Daniela V. Carbogim, David Robertson, and John Lee. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(2):119-149, June 2000.
    • [19] Henry Prakken. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law - ICAIL '95, pages 165-174, New York, USA, May 1995. ACM Press.
    • [20] Ronald P. Loui, Jeff Norman, Jon Olson, and Andrew Merrill. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law - ICAIL '93, pages 202-211, New York, USA, August 1993. ACM Press.
    • [21] Robert A. Kowalski and Francesca Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):275-296, 1996.
    • [22] Kathleen Freeman and Arthur M. Farley. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):163-197, 1996.
    • [23] Minhong Wang, Huaiqing Wang, Doug Vogel, Kuldeep Kumar, and Dickson K.W. Chiu. Agent-based negotiation and decision making for dynamic supply chain formation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(7):1046-1055, October 2009.
    • [24] Thomas F. Gordon and Nikos Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law - ICAIL '97, pages 10-18, New York, USA, June 1997. ACM Press.
    • [25] A Bondarenko. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93(1-2):63-101, June 1997.
    • [26] Ali Koudri and Joel Champeau. MODAL: A SPEM Extension to Improve Co-design Process Models. In Jürgen Münch, Ye Yang, and Wilhelm Schäfer, editors, New Modeling Concepts for Today⣙s Software Processes, volume 6195 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 248-259. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
    • [27] Jesús Gallardo, Crescencio Bravo, and Miguel A. Redondo. A model-driven development method for collaborative modeling tools. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(3):1086-1105, May 2012.
    • [28] Luca Iandoli, Ivana Quinto, Anna De Liddo, and Simon Buckingham Shum. Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(3):298-319, 2014.
    • [29] RosalieJ. Ocker. Promoting Group Creativity in Upstream Requirements Engineering. In John M Carroll, editor, Creativity and Rationale SE - 11, volume 20 of Human⣓Computer Interaction Series, pages 223-236. Springer London, 2013.
    • [30] S. Simon, S Johnson, S. Cavell, and T. Parsons. Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: an analysis of students' interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5):440-453, October 2012.
    • [31] Oliver Scheuer, Bruce M McLaren, Armin Weinberger, and Sabine Niebuhr. Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, pages 1-31, 2013.
    • [32] Salvatore T. March and Gerald F. Smith. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4):251-266, December 1995.
    • [33] Alan R. Hevner, Salvatore T. March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1):75-105, March 2004.
    • [34] A Nkwocha, J G Hall, and Lucia Rapanotti. Design rationale capture for process improvement in the globalised enterprise: an industrial study. Software & Systems Modeling, pages 1-21, 2010.
    • [35] Xiaoqing (Frank) Liu, Eric Christopher Barnes, and Juha Erik Savolainen. Conflict detection and resolution for product line design in a collaborative decision making environment. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '12, page 1327, New York, New York, USA, February 2012. ACM Press.
    • [36] OMG. Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (SPEM) Version 2.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/, 2008.
    • [37] Elena Nardini, Ambra Molesini, Andrea Omicini, and Enrico Denti. SPEM on test: the SODA case study. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing - SAC '08, pages 700-706, New York, New York, USA, March 2008. ACM Press.
    • [38] B. Henderson-Sellers and I. Hawryszkiewycz. Comparing Collaborative and Process Semantics for Cooperative Information Systems. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 17(02):155-176, January 2008.
    • [39] E. Breton and J. Bezivin. Process-centered model engineering. In Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pages 179- 182. IEEE Comput. Soc, 2001.
    • [40] A.-W. Scheer, O. Thomas, and O. Adam. Process Modelling using Event-Driven Process Chains. In Marlon Dumas, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede, editors, Process-Aware Information Systems, pages 119-146. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, September 2005.
    • [41] P Wohed, W M P Aalst, M Dumas, A H M Hofstede, and N Russell. On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. In Schahram Dustdar, JoséLuiz Fiadeiro, and AmitP. Sheth, editors, Business Process Management, volume 4102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 161-176. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
    • [42] Soung-Hie Kim and Ki-Jin Jang. Designing performance analysis and IDEF0 for enterprise modelling in BPR. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(2):121-133, 2002.
    • [43] Stephen E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, updated edition, 2003.
    • [44] A. van Deursen, P. Klint, and J. Visser. Domain-specific languages : An annotated bibliography. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 35(6):26-36, 2000.
    • [45] Jordi Cabot and Martin Gogolla. Object Constraint Language (OCL): A Definitive Guide. In Marco Bernardo, Vittorio Cortellessa, and Alfonso Pierantonio, editors, Formal Methods for Model-Driven Engineering, volume 7320 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 58-90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, June 2012.
    • [46] Kaj U. Koskinen, Pekka Pihlanto, and Hannu Vanharanta. Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4):281-290, May 2003.
    • [47] Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein and Charles Kay Ogden. Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus: German and English. Routledge, 1990.
    • [48] M. Rossi, J.-P. Tolvanen, B. Ramesh, K. Lyytinen, and J. Kaipala. Method rationale in method engineering. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume vol.1, page 10. IEEE Comput. Soc, 2000.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article