=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2238/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Tool Support for the EKD Enterprise Modeling Method: Towards Managing Inter-View Consistency
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2238/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2238
|authors=Afef Awadid,Selmin Nurcan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/AwadidN18
}}
==Tool Support for the EKD Enterprise Modeling Method: Towards Managing Inter-View Consistency==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2238/paper5.pdf
Tool Support for the EKD Enterprise Modeling Method:
Towards Managing Inter-View Consistency
Afef Awadid1 and Selmin Nurcan1
1 University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France
{afef.awadid@malix.univ-paris1.fr,nurcan@univ-paris1.fr}
Abstract. Central to Multi-View Modeling Methods (MVMMs) is the structu-
ration of an enterprise and its underlying systems into views and levels in order
to curtail their complexities. However, efficient application of MVMMs consid-
erably depends on the availability of corresponding modeling tools- the so-called
Multi-View Modeling (MVM) tools. The latter are crucial for machine pro-
cessing of models (views) and hence for managing inter-view consistency. This
is the reason why the focus of this paper is geared towards developing a MVM
tool for the Enterprise Knowledge Development (EKD) method - a representative
of MVMMs. This tool is intended not only to fill a research gap, but also to im-
plement insights and findings derived from our previous work on inter-view con-
sistency. Two different ways of managing consistency are indeed stressed: con-
sistency by construction and consistency checking. Compared to the latter, the
former advocates preventing inconsistencies rather than handling/correcting
them. The tool has been implemented using ADOxx platform and realized within
the Open Models Laboratory (OMiLAB).
Keywords: EKD Enterprise Modeling Method, Multi-View Modeling Tool, In-
ter-View Consistency, ADOxx.
1 Introduction
At the core of Multi-View Modeling Methods (MVMMs) is Multi-View Modeling
(MVM). MVM is a widely accepted technique to reduce the complexity of a system
under study (e.g., a business process, enterprise, cyber-physical system). The key idea
behind this technique is to capture different aspects of the modelled system (e.g. its
structure and its behavior) by different views (models) [1]. Each view (i) sheds light on
certain aspects of the system, and (ii) is specified by a viewpoint which depicts the
concepts considered by the view and the valid combinations (e.g. specified by a meta-
model) [2]. The usefulness of MVM "is obvious and objectively proven" [3]. This opin-
ion has been ascertained by several studies e.g. the one conducted by [4], where the
authors found that applying the viewpoint concept makes "it easier to cope with overall
size of the problem domain" and leads "to a deeper understanding of the problem do-
main" [4].
Nonetheless, efficient application of MVMMs considerably depends on the availa-
bility of corresponding modeling tools [5] commonly known as MVM tools. Such tools
50
become valuable assets in machine processing of models in general and in managing
inter-view consistency in particular. It is, therefore, no surprise that modeling tools de-
velopment gains quite a lot of attraction in academia and industry. A convincing proof
is that a plethora of modeling tools underpinning MVMMs have been developed within
the Open Model Initiative Laboratory (OMiLAB) 1 - “a physical and virtual research
environment that supports meta-modeling research projects and communities" [6]. Fol-
lowing this direction, the paper at hand reports on the development of a MVM tool for
the first version of the Enterprise Knowledge Development (EKD) method [7]. EKD
stands for a framework for modeling enterprise knowledge that, grounding on the terms
"dimension” and "perspective", it allows mastering not only the complexity of the en-
terprise as a whole, but also that of business processes.
In its current version, the tool focuses on the process related aspects of EKD since
this method advocates a MVM approach for business processes. An EKD business pro-
cess model is thereby depicted in terms of three complementary views (sub-models),
where each view captures one or more perspectives (aspects). Based on this, these
views are not independent from each other. There is hence a need for managing con-
sistency among them. The proposed tool is intended not only to fill a research gap, but
also to implement insights and findings derived from our previous work on inter-view
consistency [8][9]. Two different ways of managing consistency are indeed stressed:
consistency by construction and consistency checking. In contrast to the latter, the for-
mer advocates preventing inconsistencies rather than handling/correcting them. The
foremost question raised in this paper is accordingly: How to implement an EKD mod-
eling tool that accounts for both ways of managing inter-view consistency? The tool
has been realized within the OMiLAB and implemented using the ADOxx platform- "a
meta modelling-based development and configuration environment to create domain-
specific modelling tools" [10].
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical foundations
for this work and briefly presents related works. Section 3 puts emphasis on the con-
ceptualization of the EKD modeling method. In Section 4, an overview of the EKD
modeling tool along with a case study demonstrating the application of this tool are
given. Lastly, section 5 concludes the paper with an outlook on future research.
2 Motivation and Related Works
2.1 Motivation
Before presenting the motivation for this work, key terms like viewpoint, view, concern
and consistency need to be defined. By viewpoint, we refer to the modeling language
used to specify a view which is represented by a conceptual model. Each view allows
capturing perspective(s). The latter is used to denote certain aspect(s) from which the
system under study can be viewed (e.g., its behavioral and structural aspects). A per-
spective can then be a synonym to the term 'concern' defined by ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010
1 http://omilab.org
51
as "any interest in the system" [11] and tied to the notion of 'separation of concerns'. A
separation of concerns is of type "horizontal" if the considered concerns belong to the
same level of abstraction/phase of development, or otherwise of type "vertical" [12].
By inter-view consistency, we mean the extent to which information contained in mul-
tiple views is not contradicting [13].
Inter-view consistency is an important aspect on which depends the quality of the cre-
ated views and, hence their capability to be involved in the “design by reuse”. Incon-
sistent views are indeed not only hard for their users to grasp but also hamper the tasks
of process analysis, redesign, reuse, and automation [14]. This may explain why our
research work has been directed toward inter-view consistency.
Following the findings of a systematic literature review of inter-view consistency
[8], we derived two different ways of managing inter-view consistency: consistency by
construction and consistency checking. The idea behind the former is to manage inter-
view consistency by preventing inconsistencies. By contrast, the aim of the latter is to
manage inter-view consistency by handling/correcting inconsistencies once detected.
These two ways of inter-view consistency are respectively in line with two principles
of MVM originally defined in [15]: 1) system-oriented MVM, where any change in one
view is automatically propagated to the other affected views so that all views are kept
consistent. 2) In diagram-oriented MVM, the effects of a change in one view cannot
automatically be seen in the other views. This thereby gives rise to temporary incon-
sistencies.
Two reasons constitute the motivation behind this work. First, the support of the
EKD method by a tool to foster its efficient application. Second the implementation of
the two diverging ways of managing consistency. Such implementation is needed to
justify the preference of one way over the other.
2.2 An Overview of the EKD Modeling Method
The development of EKD method started in late nineties within a research project called
ELECTRA (ELectrical Enterprise Knowledge for TRansforming Applications), in
which several researchers have been involved including the co-author of this paper.
EKD stands for a framework for modeling enterprise knowledge that, grounding on the
terms "dimension” and "perspective", it allows mastering not only the complexity of
the enterprise as a whole, but also that of business processes. As exhibited in Fig. 1, the
EKD method structures the enterprise in three key dimensions: Goals, Business pro-
cesses and Information systems. In its current version, the tool targets the dimension
"business processes" which is organized into three perspectives (see Fig. 1): Actors/
Roles, Roles/Activities and Business Objects. Each perspective is captured by a view
(i.e., sub-model). Consequently, according to the EKD framework, a business process
model is divided into three views: actors/roles view, roles/activities view and business
objects view. A horizontal separation of concerns is therefore applied by this method.
52
To facilitate the implementation of the EKD modeling method in a modeling tool,
we perceived this method as a specialized instantiation of the generic modelling method
framework as introduced in [16]. This framework considers a modeling method as a
composite of three building blocks: (i) a modelling language that defines: the syntactic
concepts and their valid relationships; the semantics, explicit properties in concept
schemata; and the notation, the graphical representation of the concepts, (ii) a modelling
procedure that focuses on how the modelling language is used to achieve results, and
(iii) mechanisms & algorithms that process the knowledge captured in diagrammatic
models. Design decisions adhering to these buildings blocks have to be taken during
the implementation of a modelling method in a modelling tool. Such "decisions directly
correspond to the intended use of the modelling method" [17]. Based on this and given
that our aim behind using EKD modeling method is the MVM of business processes
with a focus on inter-view consistency, our design decisions include the definition of
the modeling language for EKD business process models, and the specification of
mechanisms and algorithms to ensure machine processing of models in general and
inter-view consistency management in particular.
Fig. 1. The EKD enterprise framework.
2.3 Related Works
A closer look at the literature on MVM tools supporting modeling methods discloses
an increasing interest in these tools. Most of them have been developed within the
OMiLAB. Bearing in mind the two ways of managing inter-view consistency (the mo-
tivation subsection), these tools can be broadly classified into two categories. The first
category encompasses tools opting for consistency by construction, whereas the second
category of tools opts rather for consistency checking.
The Semantic Object Model (SOM) tool [18] is one example of tools fitting in the
first category. The SOM tool allows modeling of SOM business process models and
resource models. This tool advocates the consistency preservation (ie how to keep all
the views consistent even when one or more of them undergo changes). It hence imple-
ments techniques that prevent inconsistencies from occurring. Moreover,
MEMO4ADO [19] is an ADOxx based tool that is devoted to the Multi-Perspective
Enterprise Modelling (MEMO) method. MEMO4ADO "implements a subset of
53
MEMO languages specifically tailored for educational purposes". Similarly, to the de-
velopers of the SOM tool, developers of MEMO4ADO are proponents of the con-
sistency by construction. Indeed, to achieve consistency among views using this tool, a
view utilizes concepts that reference elements defined in other views. This fosters an
automatic update of the views and hence their consistency preservation. In contrast to
the two aforementioned MVM tools, the SemCheck tool [20] belongs to the second
category. It thereby promotes consistency checking by enabling an analysis of interre-
lated views in order to detect errors/ inconsistencies and to extract information from
those views. The systematic analysis of queries is the main technique implemented by
the tool that enables detecting inconsistencies. Consistency management in multi-view
enterprise models was also discussed in [21] where different techniques have been in-
ventoried on a technical level.
Compared to existing MVM tools, the aim pursued in this paper is to develop a
MVM tool for the EKD method that implements these two diverging ways of managing
consistency. Such implementation is needed for evaluating them with respect to quality
attributes like time and consistency, and therefore for providing a reasonable reason to
prefer one over the other.
3 Conceptualization of the EKD Modeling Method
This section is devoted to defining the language for EKD business process models. The
language is specified by a metamodel. As shown in Fig. 2, the EKD business process
metamodel highlights concepts and their relationships that are used for modeling busi-
ness processes. It is specified using UML class diagrams. Concepts are linked by an
association relationship along with cardinalities to denote how many instances of the
one concept can be connected to one instance of the other concept. The metamodel
encompasses three interrelated viewpoints: actor/role, role/activity, and business ob-
jects. An EKD business process model is then represented in the form of three comple-
mentary views (sub-models). Each view is specified by its corresponding viewpoint (a
metamodel part).
54
Fig. 2. The EKD business process metamodel [22].
The actor/role viewpoint is about representing the organizational perspective of a
business process. The latter focuses on where and by whom activities are performed.
The concepts "Actor" and "Role" are consequently at the core of the actor/role view-
point. Here, it is worth noting the distinction between these two concepts. An “Actor”
refers to a physical enterprise entity (e.g., customer, business unit manager, financial
director), whereas the “Role” defines the responsibility assigned to an actor within a
business process (e.g., loan request validator). An actor plays one or more roles. Each
"Role" is responsible of one or more operational goals. Moreover, there is a "Depend-
ency" between roles. Such dependency can be of type "Authorization", "Coordination",
"Objective" or "Resource". Fig. 3 exhibits the representation of an actor/role view.
55
Fig. 3. Representation of an actor/ role view.
By contrast to the actor/role viewpoint, the role/activity viewpoint puts emphasis on
the functional and behavioral perspectives of a business process. Functional perspective
represents what activities should be performed. While, behavioral perspective repre-
sents when and how activities are performed. Central to role/ activity viewpoint are
"Activity" and the control flow: "Sequence", "Parallel" and "Alternative". A represen-
tation of parallel and alternative executions is given in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Representation of parallel and alternative executions.
Last but not least, the business objects viewpoint that is articulated around the con-
cept "Object". Each business activity of a given business process requires business ob-
jects as generations of input and output data. A business activity therefore use/produce
business objects. Business objects refer to physical and informational elements of an
enterprise that are required for its functioning. This viewpoint highlights then the infor-
mational perspective depicting the business objects handled by a process, their struc-
tures, and the links between them. As outlined in the metamodel (Fig. 2), an "Object"
has one or more "State" and is composed of one or more "Operation". An "Operation"
causes one or more "Transition". Accordingly, a business objects viewpoint allows de-
scribing not only a static aspect of business objects (i.e. business objects and their
links), but also a dynamic one enabling representing business objects lifecycles accord-
ing to activities carried out within business processes. Note that the concept "Business
process" appearing in the metamodel denotes a compound building block within a busi-
ness process model. It is therefore not a basic concept of the language.
56
4 The EKD Modeling Tool
This section discusses the conceptualization of the theoretical foundation introduced
above towards a modeling tool for the EKD method. The tool is based on the ADOxx
metamodeling platform. In this section, an overview of the tool functionalities as well
as a case study demonstrating the use of the tool are given.
4.1 EKD Multi-View Modeling Functionality
The EKD tool enables modeling of the EKD business process models (the second di-
mension of the EKD enterprise framework on Fig. 1). Moreover, the tool allows to
carry out the two principles of MVM (cf. section 2.1). Views can therefore be created
following either the system-oriented or the diagram-oriented MVM. The modeler is the
one who decide which principle to follow. Table 1 brings an insight on how the EKD
viewpoints have been implemented in ADOxx.
Table 1. MVM principles, EKD viewpoints and their ADOxx counterparts.
MVM principle (ADOxx model type group) EKD viewpoint (ADOxx model type)
Actor/ Role
System-oriented MVM Role/ Activity
Business Objects
Actor/ Role
Diagram-oriented MVM Role/ Activity
Business Objects
4.2 EKD Consistency Management Functionality
The implementation of this functionality requires as prerequisite the definition of the
corresponding consistency rules. The latter have been defined in a previous work [10].
The tool implements the two ways of managing inter-view consistency: consistency by
construction and consistency checking. As indicated in section 2.1, these two ways
dovetail respectively with the two principles of MVM defined in [15]: system-oriented
MVM and diagram-oriented. Accordingly, each way of managing consistency refers to
a tool functionality that is aligned with the corresponding principle (see Table 2) and
that is implemented using AdoScript language.
Table 2. MVM principle realized as ADOxx model type group and corresponding tool func-
tionality.
MVM principle (ADOxx model type group) Tool functionality
System-oriented MVM Consistency by construction
Diagram-oriented MVM Consistency checking
In the system-oriented MVM, the system (i.e. the tool) plays a key role in managing
inter-view consistency. It somehow constructs consistency and hence relieves the mod-
57
eler from the burden of handling/correcting inconsistencies. By contrast, in the dia-
gram-oriented MVM, it is the modeler who plays a key role in managing inter-view
consistency as it is up to him to resolve inconsistencies once detected by the system.
The consistency by construction functionality is supported by the event handlers in
ADOxx along with the attribute type "interRef" which together promote an automatic
consistency preservation. Event Handlers are AdoScripts that are executed when certain
events occur (e.g. create a node, create a connector, edit an attribute value,etc). "Inter-
Ref" is an attribute type that stands for a reference on a model or an instance. One
example of EKD consistency rules that have been implemented in this way is rule 1
(roles in the actor role view and those in the role activity view have to be the same).
The corresponding AdoScript implementing this rule is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Consistency by construction: implementation of rule 1 using an event handler (after_cre-
ate_modeling_node).
The implementation of other rules has taken the form of guidelines for the modeler.
Example of these rules is rule 2 (an operational goal has not to be atomic). An excerpt
AdoScript implementing this rule is presented in Fig. 6. The aim always is to prevent
inconsistencies as much as possible.
Fig. 6. Consistency by construction: implementation of rule 2 as a guideline using AdoScript.
58
As to the consistency checking functionality, it refers to an AdoScript code that allows
comparing the created views based on the defined consistency rules. As a result of ex-
ecuting such functionality, a list of consistency issues is displayed to the modeler who
has to handle them. For some EKD consistency rules, the execution of this functionality
requires a system/modeler interaction using “EDITFIELD” in AdoScript as is the case
for rule 2 (see Fig. 7).
Fig. 7. Consistency checking of rule 2 based on a system/ modeler interaction.
4.3 Case Study: A Cab Booking Process in EKD
This subsection demonstrates the use of the EKD tool for modeling a cab booking pro-
cess. In this example, we give a brief idea of the execution of the two diverging func-
tionalities of managing inter-view consistency: consistency by construction and con-
sistency checking. The execution of the AdoScript implementing rule 2 according to
the consistency by construction approach (see Fig. 6) for the cab booking process gives
rise to a guideline (see Fig. 8).
Fig.8. Output of executing the consistency by construction functionality for rule 2.
Fig. 8 shows that the applied consistency rule (i) is of type semantic, (ii) concerns the
role “Cab booking requester” and (iii) is implemented as a guideline. The latter insists
on the necessity of translating the operational goal “Book a taxicab” into at least two
activities in the corresponding role activity view.
The execution of the consistency checking functionality gives rise to the output pre-
sented in Fig. 9. As shown in this figure, such execution allows the detection of a set of
consistency issues found in the created views. Each consistency issue is accompanied
59
with its nature (syntactic or semantic) and the modeling element that is source of this
issue.
Fig. 9. Output of executing the consistency checking functionality for several consistency rules.
5 Concluding Remarks
The paper at hand reports on a MVM tool for the EKD enterprise modeling method. In
its current version, the tool accounts for two different ways of managing inter-view
consistency: consistency by construction and consistency checking. In contrast to the
latter, the former advocates preventing inconsistencies rather than correcting them.
The implementation of these two ways in one tool is needed for evaluating them with
respect to quality attributes like time and consistency, and therefore for providing a
reasonable reason to prefer one over the other. The aforementioned ways of managing
inter-view consistency dovetail respectively with two different principles of MVM:
system-oriented MVM and diagram-oriented MVM. The tool has been implemented
using ADOxx platform and realized within the OMiLAB. The development of this tool
is an ongoing work. Therefore, we intend to finish the development of the tool and
evaluate it with students to determine its usefulness and to improve it accordingly.
References
1. Reineke, J., Tripakis, S.: Basic problems in multi-view modeling. In: International Confer-
ence on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, Ber-
lin, Heidelberg, pp. 217-232 (2014).
2. Bork, D., Karagiannis, D.: Model-driven development of multi-view modelling tools the
muviemot approach. In: 9th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends. IEEE,
pp. IS-11 (2014).
3. Fischer, K., Panfilenko, D., Krumeich, J., Born, M., Desfray, P.: Based Modeling-Towards
Defining the Viewpoint Concept and Implications for Supporting Modeling Tools. In
EMISA, pp. 123-136 (2012).
4. Easterbrook, S., Yu, E., Aranda, J., Fan, Y., Horkoff, J., Leica, M., Qadir, R. A.:Do view-
points lead to better conceptual models? An exploratory case study. In: 13th IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE, pp. 199-208 (2005).
5. Bork, D.: Using Conceptual Modeling for Designing Multi-View Modeling Tools. In: 21st
Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) (2015).
60
6. Karagiannis, D.: Agile modeling method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th Panhel-
lenic Conference on Informatics. ACM, pp. 5-10 (2015)
7. Loucopoulos, P., Kavakli, V., Prekas, N., Rolland, C., Grosz, G. and Nurcan, S.: Using the
EKD Approach: The Modelling Component, Paris (1997). Available at: https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-00707997, last access: 19.05.2018.
8. Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: A systematic literature review of consistency among business pro-
cess models. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Springer,
pp. 175-195 (2016).
9. Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: Towards enhancing business process modeling formalisms of EKD
with consistency consideration. In: IEEE Tenth International Conference on Research Chal-
lenges in Information Science (RCIS). IEEE, pp. 1-12 (2016).
10. Karagiannis, D.: Business process management: A holistic management approach. In Inter-
national United Information Systems Conference. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 1-12
(2012).
11. Systems and software engineering- Architecture description: ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010.
http://www.iso-architecture.org/ieee-1471/cm/, last access: 19.05.2018.
12. Solberg, A., Simmonds, D., Reddy, R., Ghosh, S., France, R.: Using aspect-oriented tech-
niques to support separation of concerns in model driven development. In: 29th International
Conference on Computer Software and Applications. IEEE, Vol. 1, pp. 121-126 (2005).
13. Persson, M., Törngren, M., Qamar, A., Westman, J., Biehl, M., Tripakis, S., Denil, J.: A
characterization of integrated multi-view modeling in the context of embedded and cyber-
physical systems. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Em-
bedded Software. IEEE Press p. 10 (2013).
14. Caetano, A. R. Silva, and J. Tribolet.: Business process decomposition-an approach based
on the principle of separation of concerns, Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems
Architectures, 5(1), 44-57 (2015).
15. Bork, D., Sinz, E. J.: Bridging the gap from a multi-view modelling method to the design of
a multi-view modelling tool. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures,
8(2), 25-41 (2013).
16. Karagiannis, D. and Kühn, H.: Metamodeling Platforms, Third International Conference
EC-Web, Vol. LNCS 2455, p. 182 (2002).
17. Fill, H.-G. and Karagiannis, D.: On the Conceptualization of Modelling Methods Using the
ADOxx Meta Modelling Platform. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architec-
tures, 8(1), pp. 4–25 (2013).
18. Ferstl, O. K., Sinz, E. J., Bork, D.: Tool support for the semantic object model. In Domain-
Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, pp. 291-310 (2016).
19. Bock, A., Frank, U.: Multi-perspective Enterprise Modeling—Conceptual Foundation and
Implementation with ADOxx. In Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, pp. 241-
267 (2016).
20. Jeusfeld, M. A.: SemCheck: checking constraints for multi-perspective modeling languages.
In Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, pp. 31-53 (2016).
21. Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R. and Bork, D.: Managing Consistency in Multi-View Enter-
prise Models: An Approach based on Semantic Queries. In theTwenty-Fourth European
Conference on Information Systems, p. Research paper 53 (2016).
22. Awadid, A., Bork, D., Karagiannis, D., Nurcan, S. Toward generic consistency patterns in
multi-view enterprise modelling. In European Conference on Information Systems, Ports-
mouth (2018, in press).