Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard

Information Systems and e-Business Management

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 397-413

  Wegmann, Alain ^a   Lê, Lam Son ^a   Regev, Gil ^a   Wood, Bryan ^b  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

^b Agile Enterprise Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Enterprise architecture; RM ODP; System modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547954977     PISSN: 16179846     EISSN: 16179854     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10257-007-0051-3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Atkinson C, Paech B, Reinhold J, Sander T (2001) Developing and applying component-based model-driven architectures in KobrA. In: Proceedings of 5th International EDOC Conference, Seattle, USA, 212-223, IEEE
2. Balabko P, Wegmann A, Ruppen A, Clément N (2005) Capturing design rationale with functional decomposition of roles in business processes modeling. Softw Process Improv Pract 10(4):379-392
3. Bernardeschi C, Dustzadeh J, Fantechi A, Najm E, Nimour A, Olsen F (1997) Transformation and consistent semantics for ODP viewpoints. In: Proceedings of FMOODS'97, Canterbery, UK
4. Boiten E, Bowman H, Derrick J, Linington P, Steen M (2000) Viewpoint consistency in ODP. Comput Netw 34(3):503-537
5. Börger E, Stärk R (2003) Abstract state machines: A method for high-level system design and analysis. Springer, Heidelberg. isbn 3-540-00702-4
6. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft system methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester. isbn 0-471-92768-6
7. Dietz J (2006) Enterprise ontology: Theory and methodology. Springer, Heidelberg. isbn 3-540-29169-5
8. Dijkman R, Quartel D, Pires L, Sinderen M (2004) A rigorous approach to relate enterprise and computational viewpoints. In: Proceedings of 8th International EDOC Conference, California, USA, pp 187-200, IEEE
9. Dori D (2002) Object-process methodology, a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg. isbn 3540654712
10. Dori D, Reinhartz-Beger I, Sturm A (2003) OPCAT - a bimodal CASE tool for object-process based system development. In: Proceedings of 5th ICEIS, Angers, France
11. D'souza DF, Wills AC (1999) Object, components and frameworks with UML, the catalysis approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading. isbn 0-201-31012-0
12. Dustzadeh J, Najm E (1997) Consistent semantics for ODP information and computational models. In: Proceedings of FORTE/PSTV'97, Osaka, Japan
13. Jackson D (2002) Alloy: A lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 11(2):256-290
14. Kruchten P (2004) The rational unified process: An introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading. isbn 0-321-19770-4
15. Lankorst M (2005) Enterprise architecture at work. Springer, Heidelberg. isbn 3-540-24371-2
16. Lê LS, Wegmann A (2005) Definition of an object-oriented modeling language for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 222a-222a, IEEE
17. Lê LS, Wegmann A (2006) SeamCAD: Object-oriented modeling tool for hierarchical systems in enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 179c-179c, IEEE
18. LeMoigne JL (1995) Les épistemologies constructivistes. Que sais-je? Presses Universitaires de France. isbn 978-2130469438
19. Luftman J, McLean ER (2004) Key issues for IT executives. MIS Quarterly Executive 3
20. Lupu E, Sloman M, Dulay N, Damianou N (2000) Ponder: Realising enterprise viewpoint concepts. In: Proceedings of 4th International EDOC Conference, Makuhari, Japan, pp 66-75, IEEE
21. Miller JG (1995) Living systems. University of Colorado Press. isbn 0070420157
22. Naumenko A (2002) Triune continuum paradigm: A paradigm for general system modeling and its applications for UML and RM-ODP, PhD thesis, School of Computer and Communication Sciences, EPFL
23. Naumenko A, Wegmann A (2002) A metamodel for the unified modeling language. In: Proceedings of <> 2002, Dresden, Germany, pp 2-17, Springer, Heidelberg
24. Naumenko A, Wegmann A (2007) Formalization of the RM-ODP foundations based on the triune continuum paradigm. Comput Stand Interfaces 29(1):39-53
25. OMG (1995-1996) ISO/IEC 10746-1, 2, 3, 4 - ITU-T Recommendation, X.901, X.902, X.903, X.904, Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing
26. Peyret H (2004) Getting Value From Enterprise Architecture Tools, Market Overview, Forrester
27. Putnam JR (2000) Architecting with RM-ODP. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. isbn 0-13-019116-7
28. Romero R, Vallecillo A (2005) Modelling the ODP computational viewpoint with UML 2.0. In: Proceedings of 9th International EDOC Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands, pp 169-180, IEEE
29. Stabell (1998) Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strateg Manage J 19(5):413-437
30. Steen MWA, Akehurst DH, Doest HWL, Lankhorst MM (2004) Supporting viewpoint-oriented enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 8th International EDOC Conference, California, USA, pp 201-211, IEEE
31. Turowski K (2002) Standardized specification of business components. University of Augsburg. URL: http://www.fachkomponenten.de/ Date of Call: 2003-03-07
32. Vernadat FB (1996) Enterprise modeling and integration: Principles and applications. Chapman & Hall, London. isbn 0-412-60550-3
33. Wegmann A (2003) On the systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems Angers, France, pp 483-49
34. Wegmann A, Naumenko A (2001) Conceptual modeling of complex systems using an RM-ODP based Ontology. In: Proceedings of 5th International EDOC Conference, Seattle, USA, pp 200-211, IEEE
35. Wegmann A, Balabko P, Lê LS, Regev G, Rychkova I (2005a) A method and tool for business-IT alignment in enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering Forum, Porto, Portugal, pp 113-118, FEUP Edições
36. Wegmann A, Regev G, Loison B (2005b) Business and IT alignment with SEAM. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Business Need, and IT Alignment, Paris
37. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information system architecture. IBM Syst J 26(3):276-292