Forwarded message from [HaimK@AOL.COM] sent originally on Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:08:51 EDT: : The need to understand and specify business and system semantics in a precise : and explicit manner, independently of any (possible) realization, has been : recognized for a while. Some progress has been made in these areas, both in : academia and in industry. However, in too many cases only lip service to : these ideas has been provided, and as a result the systems we build or buy : are all too often not what they are supposed to be. : We used to live with that, and quite often users relied on human : intermediaries to "sort the things out". However, with the rapid development : of e-commerce, there is no human intermediary; if the system is not what it : is supposed to be then its user will quickly go to a competitor. : For a specification it is much more important to be clear and explicit than : to be conformant to a specific language. In particular, business rules should : never be invented (or discovered) by the developers: these rules are a part : of the business specification to be read and accepted by the business subject : matter experts. This applies to all kinds of specifications. Moreover, the : same underlying concepts and constructs should be used for all : specifications, thus providing a common ground for "getting from here to : there" with explicit traceability. : The challenges in this area are varied and substantial. We are often urged to : use the currently fashionable buzzwords, or a magic tool, that apparently : will solve our problems. But tools are often a part of our problem set: a : specifier who deals with the semantics of a complex subject matter does not : need to struggle with the additional complexity of a methodology, a set of : buzzwords, or a tool (i.e., a syntax). : Fortunately, we know a lot about the underlying concepts and constructs : including domain patterns. Many have been around for quite a while, some of : the basics were standardized in the Reference Model of Open Distributed : Processing, and its usage, although not yet widespread, was discussed at our : OOPSLA99 workshop. In many cases, good concepts are successfully used in a : specific narrow area, and independently discovered and rediscovered again, : possibly under different names. This need not be the case. As a simple and : fashionable example, consider "extreme programming" used to obtain rapid : negative feedback in the process of program development. The same approach - : call it "extreme modeling" - can certainly be used in business and other : modeling, and for the same reasons. Moreover, the results of business : modeling may be - and have been - successfully used in business : transformation. : Our goal - in the tradition of our previous OOPSLA workshops - is to be a : focal point for bringing together theoreticians and practitioners to report : their experience with making semantics precise, clear, concise and explicit : in (OO) business specifications, business designs, and system specifications. : Workshop contributions can range from research (where category theory is : starting to be used successfully) through academic (transferring theory into : practice) and industrial "war stories", with an emphasis on new areas like : e-commerce and extreme modeling practice. : Contributions (5-10 pages in postscript or -- preferably -- pdf) are due : BEFORE September 1, 2000 to haimk@acm.org. Proceedings of the workshop will : be published, as usual. : : Workshop organizers: : Haim Kilov, Genesis Development Corporation : Ken Baclawski, Northeastern University : : ===== Start of ISWorld List Footer ===== : ISWorld list is a service of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) : (http://www.aisnet.org) hosted at University College Dublin. For archives, : subscribing, or posting "norms" see http://www.isworld.org/isworldlist : ===== End of ISWorld List Footer =====
-- Wirtschaftsinformatik, FB5, Universitaet GH Essen Gustaf.Neumann@uni-essen.de, neumann@computer.org http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/Neumann.html