1. A template-based analysis of the GRL EMMSAD 2005, june 13-14, Porto Gautier Dallons, Patrick Heymans, Isabelle Pollet University of Namur (Belgium) PRECISE research lab www.info.fundp.ac.be/PRECISE We thank Andreas L. Opdahl and

2. Outline Context: UEML and InterOP Objectives Template GRL Applying the template to GRL Observations and findings Summary of contributions Future work

3. UEML and InterOP www.interop-noe.org Enterprise Modelling (EM)  modelling the various aspects of the enterprise processes, resources, organisational structure, information and information flows, strategy,...  for various purposes developing supporting IS, simulation, planning, decision making, training,... support enterprise interoperabilty and integration Current situation : tower a Babel  many languages, many tools Consequence : interoperability, integration and shared enterprise knowledge difficult to attain

4. UEML and InterOP www.interop-noe.org UEML  Unified Enterprise Modelling Language  An intermediate language that supports integration and transformation of enterprise models maintaining global consistency across models and tools Past: UEML 1.0 (2003, UEML project)  small pilot project  focus on process  integrates 3 EMLs: GRAI [Doumeingts], EEML [Jorgensen&Carlsen] and IEM [Mertins&Jochem]  used ad-hoc DB-inspired integration approach

5. UEML and InterOP www.interop-noe.org Present: towards UEML 2.0  started in 2004 as one of the activities of InterOP NoE  larger and distributed settings  long term iterative and incremental process Requirements Languages Approaches integrated through determine choice and improvement of determine choice of

6. UEML and InterOP www.interop-noe.org Current task  Find out constructs of different languages that are suitable for modelling the same real-world things  Approach: based on template by Opdahl and Henderson-Sellers  Current shortlist of languages being studied: UML 2.0, GRL, XPDL, BPMN, IDEF3, ISO/DIS 19440, Coloured Petri Nets

7. Objectives of this paper Report on template-based definition of GRL  1 st iteration Why GRL ?  Goals are an important aspect of the enterprise  Goal modelling is currently missing in the UEML  GRL integrates i* and NFR  GRL is expected to become popular  GRL has a public specification

8. Template [Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004] Purpose  structured text-based way of defining the syntax and semantics of modeling languages  for further analysis, comparison, integration,... Advantages  distributed work  simple to use  tailorability and extensibility Limitations  no visualisation, no overall picture

9. Template [Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004] Template fields (per modelling construct) (1/2)  Preamble 1.Construct name 2.Alternative construct names 3.Which language the construct is part of 4.Language acronym and references (URI/other) 5.Which diagram types the construct is used in 6.Diagram type acronym and references (URI/other)  Syntax definition 1.Icon/line style (lexical information) 2.User-definable attributes 3.Relationships to other constructs –Same diagram type –Same language, other diagram types 4.Cardinality restrictions 5.Layout conventions

10. Template [Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004] Template fields (2/2)  Semantics (in terms of BWW-Ontology) 1.Which instantiation level is the modelling construct intended to represent? 2.Which class of things is it intended to represent? 3.Which properties is it intended to represent, if any? Which relationships is it intended to represent, if any? 4.Which states, events and processes is it intended to represent, if any? 5.Which modality (permission, recommendation etc) is is intended to represent?  Open issues

11. Template [Opdahl & Henderson-Sellers, 2004] For each construct For each construct Inst level Segment Ontological Class Ontological Class Ontological Property Ontological Property Represented Class Represented Class Represented Property Represented Property Represented event Represented event Ontological state Ontological state Ontological event Ontological event Shared ontology Represented state Represented state Modality

12. GRL 3.0 www.usecasemaps.org/urn Goal-oriented Requirements Language  aka ITU standard URN-NFR Originates from NFR (Chung) and i* (Yu) 4 categories of concepts in GRL  Actor  intentional elements Goal, Softgoal, Task, Resource and Belief  links (intentional relationships) Dependency, Decomposition, Means-end, Contibution, Correlation  non-intentional elements references to non-GRL model elements

13. GRL 3.0 www.usecasemaps.org/urn GRL 3.0 specification consists of  3 concrete syntaxes textual syntax (in BNF) graphical syntax (in BNF + topological information) XML syntax (as an XML DTD)  informal semantics  examples of GRL models  a tutorial No abstract syntax (meta-model)

14. GRL 3.0 www.usecasemaps.org/urn Example (from [Yu])

15. Applying the template to GRL Example: Goal ActiveThing StateLaw Goal ”Actor” 0:1 ”Actor” 0:1 ”Goal” 1:1 Thing {instance, type} Life time ”Attribute” 0:n AnyRegular Property ”Dependency” 0:n Transformation Law ”Means-end” 0:n ”Decomposition” 0:n Law Wished by actor if any Property isHeldBy represents isDependumOf hasAttribute isSubElementInisEndIn

16. Applying the template to GRL Some sample BWW definitions:  “A state law is a law that constrains the values that other properties can have for individual states the thing can be in, i.e., state laws are structural/static.”  “A transformation law is a law that constrains the values that other properties can have across multiple states, i.e., transformation laws are behavioural/dynamic.”  “One thing acts on another thing if and only if the history of the second thing would have been different had the first thing not existed.”  “We say that one thing is acted on by another thing if and only if the second thing acts on the first.”

17. Applying the template to GRL Example: Goal Some of the issues raised  A Goal is not always held by an Actor ! whose goal is it if it is not ?  Are Actors humans or can they be other things (computer- systems, organisational units,...)? Specific individuals or classes? Roles ?  Whose properties does the state law constrain? the future system ? the current system ? the overall organisation ?

18. Applying the template to GRL Example: Goal ActiveThing StateLaw Goal ”Actor” 0:1 ”Actor” 0:1 ”Goal” 1:1 Thing {instance, type} Life time ”Attribute” 0:n AnyRegular Property ”Dependency” 0:n Transformation Law ”Means-end” 0:n ”Decomposition” 0:n Law Wished by actor if any ”Future System” 1:1 ”Future System” 1:1 ActedOn Thing Property isHeldBy representsisDependumOf hasAttribute isSubElementInisEndIn isAbout

19. Applying the template to GRL Example: Goal Some of the issues raised (cont’s)  According to the syntax, Goal can also be the source (depender) or target (dependee) of a Dependency. What does it mean ? the attainment of that goal depends or is depended on by ‘something’ ?  overlap with the semantics of Contribution and Correlation  what can that ‘something’ be ? the actor depends on ‘something’ for the attainment of that goal  what if there is no holding actor ?  what can that ‘something’ be ?... ?

20. Applying the template to GRL Overview GRL constructBWW represented class BWW represented property ActorActiveThing- Goal-StateLaw Task-TransformationLaw Softgoal-StateLaw ResourceActedOnThing- Belief-StateLaw  Filled in template: 2-3 pages per construct

21. Applying the template to GRL Overview GRL constructBWW represented class BWW represented property Means-end-TransformationLaw Dependency-StateLaw Decomposition-TransformationLaw Contribution-MutualProperty Correlation-MutualProperty

22. Observations and findings  Template-based definition required high degree of subjectivity essentially because GRL spec is imprecise  Many dark spots in GRL central constructs without or with vague semantics  e.g. goal, actor, dependency true of secondary construct too  e.g. « short-hands » contradictions between the various concrete syntaxes parts of the syntax are not very intuitive  e.g. DECOMPOSITION FROM TO  better: DECOMPOSITION OF INTO

23. Observations and findings  Using the template was easy short tutorial (1h) + examples enough to start took 4 days to complete  Getting into BWW was harder but the template helped gain familiarity with BWW  BWW too general to discriminate between GRL constructs e.g. Goal, Softgoal, Belief and Dependency all have StateLaw as a BWW represented property informal justifications and open issues in template are as important as represented classes and properties  Many repetitive tasks in filling in the template

24. Summary of contributions Made abstract syntax (meta-model) of GRL explicit Made (a tentative) semantic of GRL explicit Discovered problems in current version of GRL Discovered limits in current version of template

25. Future work 2 nd iteration  Add new classes and properties to BWW toward an enterprise-specific version of the ontology  Complete template-based definition of GRL discuss results with GRL users and ITU to seek consensus use more specific BWW classes and properties issues not addressed yet: Contribution and Correlation subtypes in GRL

26. Future work Complete definitions of other EMLs Compare definitions of EMLs Integrate into the UEML Tool support for template usage  collaborative editing and management of templates  repository  automate comparisons of EMLs  visualisation  import meta-models (if they exist) ...