Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Translation between pragmatic software development methods

Traduction parmi des méthodes pragmatiques de développement du logiciel

  • XI — Arrows, Boxes, Circles (2)
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
ESEC '87 (ESEC 1987)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 289))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Currently a wide range of pragmatic information system development methods exists, each method offering different approaches, techniques and tools. For many large and complex systems a multi-method approach would be preferable but the fragmentation of contemporary methods does not cater at present for a unified representation of system specifications. The AMADEUS project attempts to redress this situation by enabling the integration of different contemporary development methods at the semantic level. The current phase of the project is concerned with developing a unified semantic model of methods and mapping the representational primitives of a variety of pragmatic development methods onto this. This paper presents the constructs of the unified model and discusses some of the issues in inter-method translation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bubenko J.A., Information system methodologies-A research view. In CRIS3 Information Systems Methodologies: Improving the practice. Eds Olle T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A., pp 289–318, IFIP-North Holland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dubois E., Hagelstein J., Lahou E., Ponsaert F., Rifaut A. and Williams F. (1986), The ERAE model: A case study. IN CRIS3 Information Systems Methodologies: Improving the practice. Eds Olle T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A., pp 87–106, IFIP-North Holland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Essink L.J.B., A modelling approach to information systems development. In CRIS3 Information Systems Methodologies: Improving the practice. Eds Olle T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A., pp 55–86, IFIP-North Holland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fikes, R E and T Kehler. The role of frame-based representation in reasoning. Communications of the ACM, 28 (9), 904–920.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Greenspan, S J. Requirements Modeling: A knowledge representation approach to software requirements definition. Technical Report CSRG-155, University of Toronto, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kung C.H. and Solvberg A., Activity modeling and behaviour modeling. In CRIS3 Information Systems Methodologies: Improving the practice. Eds Olle T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A., pp 145–172, IFIP-North Holland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Loucopoulos, P; Black, W.J; Layzell, P.J; Sutcliffe, A.G., AMADEUS-A Multi-method Approach for Developing Universal Specifications. Presented to ESPRIT technical week, November 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. MacDonald I.G. and Palmer I.R., System development in a shared data environment-The D2S2 methodology. In CRIS1 Information Systems Design Methodologies: A comparative review. Eds Olle T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A., IFIP-North Holland, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  9. MacDonald I. G., Information Engineering-An Improved, Automatable Methodology for the Design of Data Sharing Systems, Proc IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the practice, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 5–7 May, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schank, R C and Abelson R P, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Lawrence J Erlbaum Associates, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tse, T.H., An Algebraic formulation for structured analysis design and models, Technical report TR-A2-85, University of Hong Kong, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tse, T.H., Towards a unified algebraic view of the structured analysis and design models. Technical Report TR-A6-85, University of Hong Kong, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wilks, Y, Good and bad arguments about semantic primitives. Department of Artificial Intelligence Research Report, University of Edinburgh, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computation, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, M60 1QD, Manchester, U.K.

    W. J. Black, A. G. Sutcliffe, P. Loucopoulos & P. J. Layzell

Authors
  1. W. J. Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. G. Sutcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Loucopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. J. Layzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Howard Nichols Dan Simpson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Black, W.J., Sutcliffe, A.G., Loucopoulos, P., Layzell, P.J. (1987). Translation between pragmatic software development methods. In: Nichols, H., Simpson, D. (eds) ESEC '87. ESEC 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 289. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022128

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022128

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-18712-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48117-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation