The REMIS approach for rationale-driven process model evolution

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4470 LNCS, Issue , 2007, Pages 12-24

  Ocampo, Alexis ^a   Münch, Jürgen ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER IESE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Process evolution; Process management; Prototype tool; Rationale; Resource description framework

Indexed keywords

AD HOC NETWORKS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROCESS DESIGN; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

PROCESS EVOLUTION; PROCESS MANAGEMENT; PROTOTYPE TOOL; REMIS (RATIONALE-DRIVEN EVOLUTION AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM); RESOURCE DESCRIPTION FRAMEWORK; SERVICE-ORIENTED APPLICATIONS; SOFTWARE ORGANIZATIONS;

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 37149056646     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. ASG: Adaptive Services Grid. Integrated Project Supported By the European Commision. Available at: http://asg-platform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Public
2. Armbrust O, Ocampo A, Soto M. Tracing Process Model Evolution: A Semi-Formal Process Modeling Approach. In: Oldevik, Jon (Ed.) u.a.: ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2005 - Proceedings. Trondheim, 2005, 57-66.
3. Bröckers A, Lott, C.M, Rombach H.D, Verlage M. MVP-L Language Report Version 2. Technical Report 265/95, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1995.
4. Bohem B, Egyed A. Kwan J, Port D, Shah A, Madachy R. Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case Study. IEEE Computer, vol 31, no 7, pp 33-44, 1998.
5. Bürge J, Brown D.C. An Integrated Approach for Software Design Checking Using Rationale. In: Gero, J (ed) Design Computing and Cognition '04. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 557-576, 2004.
6. Compendium Institute, http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/.
7. Conklin J, Begeman M.L. gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 303-331. 1988.
8. Curtis, B., Kellner, M. J. Over, J. 1992. Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35, 9 (Sep. 1992), 75-90.
9. Dutoit A. (Ed), McCall R. (Ed.), Mistrik I.(Ed.), Paech B. (Ed.). Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
10. Dutoit A, Paech B. Rationale-Based Use Case Specification. Requirements Engineering Journal. vol. 7, no 1, pp. 3-19, 2002.
11. Dellen B, Kohler K, Maurer F. Integrating Software Process Models and Design Rationales. In. Proceedings of 11th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference (KBSE '96), Syracuse, NY, pp. 84-93, 1996.
12. Fischer G, Lemke A, McCall R, Morch A. Making Argumentation Serve Design. In Moran TP, Carroll JM (eds) Design Rationale, Concepts, Techniques and Use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 267-294.
13. Klein M. An Exception Handling Approach to Enhancing Consistency, Completeness, and Correctness in Collabora-tive Requirements Capture. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, vol 5, no 1, pp. 37-46. 1997.
14. Klyne, G., Carroll., J eds.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax W3C Recom-mendation 10 February 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
15. Kunz W, Rittel H. Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper No. 131, Institut für Grundlagen der Plannung, Universität Stuttgart, Germany, 1970.
16. Gotel O, Finkelstein A. Contribution Structures. In: Proceedings International Symposium on Requirements Engi-neering, IEEE, York, pp. 100-107, 1995.
17. Lee, J. A Qualitative Decision Management System. In P.H. Winston & S. Shellard (eds.) Artificial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers, Vol.1, pp. 104-133, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
18. Lee, J. SIBYL: a Tool for Managing Group Design Rationale. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Los Angeles, California, United States, October 07 - 10, 1990). CSCW '90. ACM Press, New York, NY, 79-92.
19. Lutz, M.: Programming Python (2nd Edition). O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, California (2001)
20. MacLean A, Young R.M., Belloti V, Moran T. Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analy-sis. Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, pp. 201-250, 1991.
21. Maurer F, Dellen B, Bendeck F, Goldmann S, Holz H, Kötting B, Schaaf, M. Merging Project Planning and Web-Enabled Dynamic Workflow Technologies. IEEE Internet Computing (2000), Vol. 4(3), pp.65-74.
22. McCall, R. PHIBIS: Procedural Hierarchical Issue-Based Information Systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Architecture at the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory, American Society of Mechanical Engi-neers, NY, pp. 17-22, 1987.
23. McCall R, Bennett P, D'Oronzio P, Oswald J, Shipman F.M, Wallace N. PHIDIAS: Integrating CAD Graphics into Dynamic Hypertext. In Streitz N, Rizk A, André J (eds), Hypertext: Concepts, Systems and Applications, Cam-bridge University Press, N.Y, pp. 152-165.
24. Merz, D.: XML for Word Processors. IBM Developer Works: 25 February 2004. Available at: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-matters33/
25. Nejmeh BA, Riddle W.E. The PERFECT Approach to Experience-based Process Evolution. Advances in Com-puters, M. Zelkowitz (Ed.), Academic Press, 2006
26. Ocampo A, Münch J.: Process Evolution Supported by Rationale: An Empirical Investigation of Process Changes. In: SPW/ProSim 2006 - Proceedings. Berlin SpringerVerlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3966, pp.,334-34, 2006.
27. Potts C, Bruns G. Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'10). Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 418-427, 1988.
28. Potts, C. and Takahashi, K. An Active Hypertext Model for System Requirements. In Proceedings of the 7th interna-tional Workshop on Software Specification and Design (Redondo Beach, California, December 06 - 07, 1993). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 62-68, 1993.
29. Pena-Mora F, Vadhavkar S. Augmenting Design Patterns with Design Rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engi-neering Desgin, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol 11, pp. 93-108, 1996.
30. Protege: Ontology Editor. 06 January 2006. Available at: http://protege.stanford.edu/
31. Ramesh B, Dhar V. Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations During Requirements Engineer-ing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol 18, no 6, pp. 498-510, 1992.
32. Reichert M, Dadam P. ADEPTflex - Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93- 29, 1998.
33. Sauer T. Project History and Decision Dependencies. Diploma Thesis. Univer-sity of Kaiserslautern 2002.
34. Sutcliffe A, Ryan M. Experience with SCRAM, a Scenario Requirements Analysis Method. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, pp. 164-173, 1998.
35. SPARQL: Query Language for RDF. 06 January 2006. Available at: http://www.w3.org/ TR/ rdf-sparql-query/
36. v.d. Aalst W, van Dongen B, Herbst J, Maruster L, Schimm G, Weijters A: Workflow mining: A Survey of Issues and Approaches. Data and Knowledge Engineering 27, 237-267 2003.
37. Verlage M, Dellen B, Maurer F, Münch J, A Synthesis of Two Process Support Approaches, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'96), pp. 59-68, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA, June 10-12, 1996.
38. WinWin. The Win Win Spiral Model. Center for Software Engineering University of Southern California http://sunset.usc.edu/research/WINWIN/ winwinspiral.html
39. Weber B, Rinderle S, Wild W, Reichert, M. CCBR-Driven Business Process Evolution. Int'l Conf. on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR'05), pp. 610-624, Chicago, August 2005.