Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ontology of Domain Analysis Concepts in Software System Design Domain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

  • 1631 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of domain analysis is to extract, identify, capture, organize, and make reusable information used in developing new information systems. Many different concepts are used in the area of domain analysis, such as concerns, features, aspects, subjects, intentions, roles. Metamodeling of domain concepts by constructing domain ontologies (ontology engineering), taxonomies, and meta-models of domain concepts supports flexible, concise, and efficient domain knowledge extraction and analysis; provides means for analyzing, representing, and reusing the results of domain analysis; and is an important step toward the development of knowledge-oriented information systems. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the concepts used in domain analysis of software systems and to construct ontology of concepts in software system design domain that describes relationships between analyzed domain concepts and highlights their properties and characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barton, R.R. (1994) Metamodeling: a state of the art review. Proceedings of the 1994 Winter Simulation Conference , Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 237–244.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brinkkemper, S. (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information & Software Technology 38(4), 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caplinskas, A., Lupeikiene, A. and Vasilecas, O. (2003) The role of ontologies in reusing domain and enterprise engineering assets. Informatica 14(4), pp. 455–470.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cranefield, S. and Purvis, M. (1999) UML as an ontology modelling language. Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration , Vol. 23, July 31, 1999, Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U. and Steyaert, P. (1997) Beyond objects: generative programming. In ECOOP’97 Aspect-Oriented Programming Workshop , Jyväskylä, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Damaševičius, R. (2006) On the application of meta-design techniques in hardware design domain. International Journal of Computer Science (IJCS) 1(1), 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Damaševičius, R. and Štuikys, V. (2002) Separation of concerns in multi-language specifications. Informatica 13(3), 255–274.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L. and Goedicke, M. (1992) Viewpoints: A framework for multiple perspectives in system development. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 2(1), 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guizzardi, G. (2007) On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta) models. In Vasilecas, O., Edler, J. and Caplinskas, A., Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Databases and Information Systems IV , IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harrison, W. and Ossher, H. (1993) Subject-oriented programming – A critique of pure objects. SIGPLAN Notices 28(10), 411–428, ACM Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrera, S., Palliotto, D., Tkachuk, G. and Luna, P. (2005) Ontological modelling of information systems from Bunge’s contributions. Proceedings of CAISE’05 , Vol. 2, Philosophical Foundations on Information Systems Engineering, Porto, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hruby, P. (2005) Role of domain ontologies in software factories. International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA 2005 , San Diego, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W. and Peterson, S. (1990) Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Videira Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-M. and Irwin, J. (1997) Aspect-Oriented Programming. LNCS 1241, 220–242. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lane, T.G. (1990) Studying Software Architecture through Design Spaces and Rules. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-18, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mizoguchi, R., van Welkenhuysen, J. and Ikeda, M. (1995) Task ontology for reuse of problem-solving knowledge. Proceedings of the 2nd Internaional Conference on Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing (KB & KS'95), Twente, The Netherlands, 46–57, IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Neighbors, J.M. (1984) The draco approach to constructing software from reusable components. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering , SE, 10(5), 564–574.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ossher, H. and Tarr, P. (2000) Multi-dimensional separation of concerns and the hyperspace approach. In Aksit, M. (ed.), Software Architectures and Component Technology: The State of the Art in Software Development . Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paslaru-Bontas, E. (2007) A Contextual Approach to Ontology Reuse: Methodology, Methods and Tools for the Semantic Web. PhD. Thesis, Freie University Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prieto-Diaz, R. (1990) Domain analysis: An introduction. Software Engineering Notes 15(2), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. SEI (Software Engineering Institute) (2004) Domain Engineering and Domain Analysis Roadmap , http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/deda_body.html

  22. Simonyi, C. (1995) The death of computer languages, the birth of intentional programming. NATO Science Committee Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sosnovsky, S. and Gavrilova, T. (2006) Development of educational ontology for C-programming. Information Theories & Applications , 3, 303–308.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Spyns, P., Meersman, R. and Jarrar, M. (2002) Data modelling versus ontology engineering. SIGMOD Record , 31(4), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Štuikys, V., Damaševičius, R., Brauklytė, I. and Limanauskienė, V. (2008) Exploration of learning object ontologies using feature diagrams. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA), June 30-July 4, 2008, Vienna, Austria, 2144–2154.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Su, X., Zhu, G., Liu, X. and Yuan, W. (2005) Presentation of programming domain knowledge with ontology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge, and Grid (SKG 2005) , 27–29 November 2005, Beijing, China, pp. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Szyperski, C. (2002) Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming , 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Turner, C.R., Fuggetta, A., Lavazza, L. and Wolf, A.L. (1999) A conceptual basis for feature engineering. Journal of Systems and Software , 49(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. VanHilst, M. and Notkin, D. (1996) Using role components to implement collaboration-based designs. Proceedings of OOPSLA’1996 , pp. 359–369. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wartik, S. and Prieto-Diaz, R. (1992) Criteria for comparing reuse-oriented domain analysis approaches. Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 2(3), 403–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Webber, D.L. and Gomaa, H. (2004) Modeling variability in software product lines with the variation point model. Science of Computer Programming , 53(3), 305–331.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Engineering Department, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Robertas Damaševičius

Authors
  1. Robertas Damaševičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Angelos Papadopoulos

  2. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Wita Wojtkowski

  3. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Gregory Wojtkowski

  4. Dep. of Information Systems, University of Gdansk, 81-824 Sopot,Polska ul. Armii, Krajowej, 119121, Poland

    Stanislaw Wrycza

  5. University of Maribor, Presernova 11, Kranj, 4000, Slovenia

    Jože Zupancic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Damaševičius, R. (2009). Ontology of Domain Analysis Concepts in Software System Design Domain. In: Papadopoulos, G., Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, G., Wrycza, S., Zupancic, J. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/b137171_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b137171_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-84809-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-84810-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation