This paper demonstrates an application
of Conceptual Graphs (CGs) in the area of software engineering.
We employ CGs as a meta-representation language to enhance consistency
checking within a multiperspective development environment, i.e. one which
employs and utilises a number of ViewPoints. We have built a ViewPoint-based
prototype called the Viewer+CG to show such application of CGs.
A ViewPoint is a loosely coupled, locally managed, self-contained object.
It encapsulates representation knowledge, development knowledge, and specification
knowledge of a problem domain. ViewPoints constitute partial specifications
which can be independently constructed by a group of developers. Thus a
complex and large-scale application can be decomposed into, and jointly
managed as, a collection of ViewPoints. Partitioning development tasks
and specifications in this manner necessitates a consistency checking procedure
to ensure that the ViewPoints can consistently work as an 'integrated'
whole. The difficulties in constructing such procedure arise from the diversity
of ViewPoint representation styles. We employ CGs to provide meta-representation
of ViewPoints. As CGs form a strong basis for logical reasoning, we are
able to use the resulting concepts and relations from the meta-representation
to establish consistency checking rules within and across ViewPoints. By
abstracting a ViewPoint specification up one level to CGs, we are able
to augment a ViewPoints-based environment with an automated consistency
checking procedure which is independent of ViewPoint representation styles.
A single system development technique is usually not adequate to construct analysis and design models of a large-scale specification due to the complexity of the specification. Thus it is necessary to decompose such specification into small, manageable parts to which a number of appropriate development methods and tools can be applied. This, in turns, enables a specification to be described from a number of 'perspectives'. Moreover, these perspectives may be viewed in different representation styles depending on selected development methods and tools. We term a development environment that supports such variation in specification construction and representation styles as a multiperspective development environment.
In particular, we consider the partition and the organisation of perspectives based upon the notion of ViewPoints (Finkelstein, et al., 1992). Different ViewPoints provide different perspectives corresponding to actors or roles in a development process. A ViewPoint is defined as a loosely coupled, locally managed, self-contained object. It encapsulates representation knowledge, development knowledge, and specification knowledge of a problem domain. A software specification is constructed by composing a set of ViewPoints together to serve a common goal of the specification.
The use of ViewPoints resolves the difficulties, expenses and time involved in analysis and design process of large-scale applications. It enhances scalability, distribution, and incremental construction of the applications. Nonetheless, partitioning development tasks and specifications into ViewPoints necessitates a consistency checking procedure to ensure that the ViewPoints can consistently work as an 'integrated' whole.
The imposition of different representation styles of ViewPoints makes it difficult to provide a consistency checking procedure for the ViewPoints. Different ViewPoints may employ different representation styles, each of which offers a set of expressive capabilities for specifying a set of properties in the specification of a ViewPoint. Additionally, a representation style offers a set of analytical capabilities for the ViewPoint to which the style is applied. The pertinent question is how to express semantic compatibility among the styles to define consistency checking rules of ViewPoints.
We propose a solution for ViewPoint consistency checking by using Conceptual Graphs (Sowa, 1984) as a meta-representation language. The notion of CGs is selected for its intuitive, graphical notations, and the underlying logic. The graphs are employed to describe a Viewpoint representation style in terms of a structure of concepts and relations. As CGs form a strong basis for logical reasoning, we are able to use the resulting concepts and relations to establish consistency checking rules within and across ViewPoints.
1.2 Objective and Outline of the Paper
This paper demonstrates an application of CGs in the area of software engineering. Our proposal is to use CGs to create underlying meta-representation models of multiperspective specifications. Such models make it possible for us to implement a generic consistency checking procedure which is independent of representation styles of the specifications. We have built a prototype called the Viewer+CG to show such application of CGs in a ViewPoints-based framework.
Unlike the approach proposed in (Delugach, 1992a; Delugach, 1992b), we do not intend to apply CGs to interpret the entire semantics of data models in different ViewPoint representation styles. We contend that using a canonical form as such is not efficient. Firstly, it is difficult to identify a single canonical form which can express all possible representation styles. Secondly, it is difficult to implement a significant number of translation rules for the mapping between the canonical form and the representation styles. Consequently, we contend that consistency checking can be automated by using a certain level of abstraction in ViewPoint representation styles, i.e. by using a meta-representation language to describe ViewPoints. By doing so, we can resolve many of the difficulties found in using canonical forms and translation rules.
The paper is outlined as follows. Section 2 elaborates the notion of ViewPoints and its tool support. Section 3 describes the scenario which will be used to illustrate the applications of CGs in subsequent sections. Section 4 explains the use of CGs as a meta-representation language in a ViewPoints-based framework. Section 5 describes a consistency checking procedure using the resulting meta-representation and rules defined in section 4. Finally, section 5 summarises and discusses the achievement of this work.
2. VIEWPOINT-ORIENTED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (VOSE)
ViewPoints, or generally written as viewpoints, are used to represent a scope of knowledge or interests of a system. The definition of viewpoints was initially employed to formalise requirement acquisition and elicitation (Mullery, 1979; Leite, 1989). In requirement engineering, viewpoints are seen as, for example, functions, sources and sinks of dataflows. The word ViewPoint distinguishes this particular notion from other multiperspective approaches. The ViewPoints concept (Finkelstein, et al., 1992) emphasises the partition of perspectives corresponding to actors or roles in a development process. This notion of ViewPoints does not constraint its use only for requirement analysis. It can also be applied to specification analysis and design by partitioning both development tasks and specifications into ViewPoints.
A ViewPoint contains three different
types of knowledge, i.e. representation, development and specification
knowledge. Such knowledge is assigned into five ViewPoint template slots
illustrated in Figure 1.
(1) The style slot, which
specifies the notations or representation styles for a ViewPoint. The notations
are instantiated to produce the specification of the ViewPoint.
(2) The work plan slot, which defines the following development actions.
The realisation of the ViewPoints
concept is developed as a prototype tool called the Viewer (Nuseibeh,
1994). In the Viewer, a problem is composed of a set of ViewPoints.
A ViewPoint merely is a self-contained partial specification of the problem.
The Viewer supports two phases of system development - the first phase is Method Design, the second phase is Method Use. Method Design is to specify a method in terms of ViewPoint templates. A ViewPoint template elaborates development techniques, i.e. representation styles and work plans, for a method fragment or a method. Method Use is to instantiate ViewPoint templates to construct a specification.
Figure 2 illustrates the architecture of VOSE in the Viewer. A method is described as a collection of ViewPoint templates, while a specification is described as a collection of ViewPoints. Symbolic links between a method and a specification represent the instantiation of method templates to construct ViewPoint specifications. Thus a ViewPoint is an instance of a ViewPoint template. According to the ViewPoint structure illustrated in Figure 1, the style slot and the work plan slot are instantiated in Method Design whereas the domain slot, the specification slot and the work record slot are instantiated in Method Use.
Representation styles of ViewPoints
can be highly heterogeneous. Thus constructing a consistency checking procedure
for the ViewPoints is not a simple task. One of possible ways to make the
ViewPoints understand each other is to employ a number of translation rules.
As shown in Figure 3, n different ViewPoint
representation styles would require a significant number, n(n-1),
of translation rules. Another possible solution is to provide a canonical
form of those representation styles. This can reduce the number of translation
rules required, but it is difficult to identify a single canonical form
which can express all possible representation styles. A number of approaches
have been proposed to tackle the difficulties found in integrating multi-views
(Meyers, 1991; Delugach,
1992a; Delugach, 1992b). Each of them
offers different benefits but there is no consensus about which is the
We propose an alternative solution to construct a consistency checking procedure in a ViewPoints-based framework. We have built the Viewer+CG which is the modified version of the Viewer to support the use of CGs for ViewPoint consistency checking. We have augmented the Viewer+CG with CGs as two 'dimensions'. Firstly, we employ CGs as a meta-representation language to describe representation styles and consistency checking rules of ViewPoints (c.f. section 4). Secondly, we construct a consistency checking procedure based on the resulting meta-representation and rules (c.f. section 5).
3. THE SCENARIO
We present a scenario to demonstrate the application of CGs in the Viewer+CG environment. Our scenario demonstrates the construction of a ViewPoint template, namely Structure and Component Identification, and the development of a specification based on the template. The template describes the process and the representation styles of a design step in the Constructive Design Approach (Kramer, et al., 1990). The CDA was launched as a design technique for distributed systems exploiting the CONIC (Magee, et al., 1989) facilities for distributed programming. The CDA emphasises design mechanism for decomposing a system into a set of components. The principle of the CDA is that a structure of potential distributed components of a specification should be maintained throughout analysis and design process, thereby enhancing reconfiguration for the specification.
The Structure and Component Identification step is to identify processing components and their decomposition to produce a structural description of a distributed application. Data flows are also identified to provide the details of the structure. By applying this development step in a ViewPoints-based framework, the structure of each component can be constructed separately and jointly managed. This enables separation of concerns, thereby reducing complexity in the specification construction of the application. The scenario will show how the specification of each distributed component can be safely and independently developed through the use of a consistency checking procedure in our tool, the Viewer+CG. In subsequent sections, we will present a series of windows which are the results of developing the scenario in the tool.
4. CGs AS META-REPRESENTATION LANGUAGE FOR VIEWPOINTS
In this section, we demonstrate the use of CGs as a meta-representation language to describe the representation style and the work plans of the Structure and Component Identification template in the scenario. The process of constructing a ViewPoint template consists of two main steps. First step is to describe the representation style of the template. Second step is to specify the work plans of the template. These steps are performed in Method Design of the Viewer+CG.
4.1 Expressing Representation Styles
A ViewPoint representation style consists of a set of style components, each of which expresses description, and a graphical component of the style. To express a representation style of a ViewPoint, we firstly employ CGs as a language to constitute concepts and relations in the style. Secondly, we use the identified concepts and relations to construct meta-representation binding of the style components. This meta-representation binding forms the basis, i.e. a set of CGs, for constructing work plan definition of the ViewPoint. The construction of work plan definition will be explained in section 4.2.
4.1.1 Component Styles
22.214.171.124 Built-in Concept and Relation Type Hierarchies
To express meta-representation of
ViewPoints in the Viewer+CG, we define built-in concept type and
relation type hierarchies as in Figure 4 and Figure
5 respectively. Built-in concept type hierarchy represents the structure
of concept types for style components in ViewPoint templates. Built-in
relation type hierarchy represents the structure of relation types for
the defined concept types. Double angle-brackets depict abstract types
in the hierarchies. Abstract types classify related groups of concept and
relation types in the hierarchies. They are not tangible types that can
be used to construct meta-representation of ViewPoint representation styles.
Built-in concept types are divided
into attribute concept types and style concept types. Attribute
concept types represent attributes of style components. Style concept
types represent style components. Each group of the types is further divided
into basic structure types and user-defined types. Basic
structure concept types are ad hoc concept types for constructing ViewPoint-based
environment architecture. User-defined concept types are concept
types which are added in the process of method construction by method designers.
Basic structure style concept types consist of viewpoint concept
type. Basic structure attribute concept types are name, domain,
and method concept types. These attributes are initially defined
for viewpoint concept type, but they can also be used for user-defined
Built-in relation types are also divided into basic structure relation types and user-defined relation types. Similar to basic structure concept types, basic structure relation types are for the environment construction. An attribute relation describes the relation between a style concept type and an attribute concept type. Examples of attribute relations will be illustrated in the next section. A hold relation describes ViewPoint ownership. For instance, a ViewPoint may hold a collection of components in its specification. The hold relation is also used to describe the ownership of a ViewPoint and its consistency checking rules. Examples of hold relations for the rules will be illustrated in Figure 18.
As defined in (Sowa, 1984), a concept of CGs can be either generic or instantiated. A generic concept is a concept without referents. An instantiated concept represents an individual concept of a particular type. For instance, [component] refers to a generic concept type component. [component: a] refers to an instance of concept type component that is identified by a referent a. A referent can be either an identifier or a variable. This definition will be applied throughout CGs dialogs in this work.
126.96.36.199 Component Styles and their Attributes
A component style is described in
terms of its graphical notations and its attributes. The meta-representation
language in the Viewer+CG captures a component style and an attribute
of the style into a style concept type and an attribute concept
type respectively. Figure 6 shows the component
styles of the Structure and Component Identification template. The
template expresses two types of component styles, component and
A relation between a style concept type and its attribute concept type is expressed as the following general form of a CG.
In the Structure and Component
Identification template, a component is identified by its name, status
and description. A component status can be either primitive or non-primitive.
A non-primitive component can be decomposed into subcomponents whereas
a primitive component cannot be decomposed further. A dataflow is identified
by its name. The pop-up menu in Figure 6 shows
an attribute list of a style concept type, named component.
Figure 7 illustrates the CGs representing relations
between style concept types and attribute concept types in the Structure
and Component Identification template.
In the following, we employ the identified concept types to construct meta-representation binding of the Structure and Component Identification template.
4.1.2 Meta-Representation Binding
Meta-representation binding of a ViewPoint representation style is expressed as a collection of CGs. The graphs specify relationships among style components.
Figure 8 depicts the meta-representation binding of the Structure and Component Identification template. The window for Meta-Representation Binding consists of three parts. The left part displays the subjects, i.e. component styles, of the binding. The middle part displays the relevant relations of the subjects. The right part displays the relevant objects, i.e. component styles, of the relations. A binding clause is read horizontally. For instance, the highlighted meta-presentation binding clause in the figure illustrates a binding between a dataflow concept type and a component concept type by a relation type named from. The clause specifies that a dataflow can be sent from a component.
Generally, a binding clause is defined as a conceptual relation from a style component to another style component. The clause is written as the following general form of a CG.
Each binding clause is constructed
by using the dialog illustrated in Figure 9. The
pop-up menu in the figure shows a list of concept types which can be used
to construct meta-representation binding of the Structure and Component
Identification template. These concept types are identified by the
steps in previous section.
depicts the CGs which represent the meta-representation binding of the
Structure and Component Identification template. A relation from
between a component concept type and a dataflow concept type
represents the dataflow sending from the component. A relation to
between a component concept type and a dataflow concept type
represents the dataflow sending to the component. A relation decomposition
between a component concept type and a viewpoint concept
type represents the ViewPoint as a decomposition of the component.
depicts the complete CGs of the representation style of the Structure
and Component Identification template. The graphs when instantiated
produce an abstract view, i.e. an instance of meta-representation, of a
ViewPoint specification using the template.
In the following, we use the resulting CGs from the meta-representation binding of the Structure and Component Identification template to establish assembly actions and consistency checking rules of the template.
4.2 Expressing Work Plans
ViewPoint work plans describe process knowledge, i.e. a series of actions and rules that are required for the construction of ViewPoint specifications. Here CGs are employed in two aspects. Firstly, we interpret an assembly action as a sequence of CGs operations. The operations are employed to implicitly transform a ViewPoint specification into CGs through the construction of the specification in Method Use (c.f. section 5.1). Secondly, we establish consistency checking rules of ViewPoints by using CGs.
4.2.1 Assembly Actions
An assembly action is interpreted
as a sequence of graph operations. The sequence provides guidance to method
designers to implement the action accordingly.
We specify the following types of
graph operations to constitute assembly actions.
(1) Add operation is to add a CG.
(2) Delete operation is to delete a CG.
(3) Retrieve operation is to perform a query on a CG.
(4) Update operation is to retrieve a CG, and save the changes which might be made.
Figure 12 illustrates a ViewPoint template for assembly actions of the Structure and Component Identification step. The left part of the Meta-Representation of Actions/Rules window displays a list of the actions. The middle part of the window displays a list of graph operations for a selected action. From the figure, an action Add Component is interpreted as a sequence of graph operations for adding a component concept, and the attribute concepts of the component concept.
4.2.2 Consistency Checking Rules
As a result of expressing representation styles as CGs, we are able to establish consistency checking rules using the graphs. We define a general form of the rules as follows.
where Conditions and Assertions are conjunctions of CGs. The Assertions must be hold if the Conditions are hold.
In this scenario, we specify two consistency checking rules for the development of a specification using the Structure and Component Identification template. Firstly, we specify the Invalid Component Status rule which enforces that only components with non-primitive status can be decomposed. Secondly, we specify the Input Decomposition Checking rule to verify the consistency of input flows between a component and its decomposition. The first rule is defined as an in-ViewPoint rule as it requires only information within the ViewPoint in which the rule is invoked. The second rule is defined as an inter-ViewPoint rule as the rule requires information across ViewPoints. The following sections elaborate how the rules are constructed.
188.8.131.52 In-ViewPoint Rules
Consider the definition of the Invalid
Component Status rule. The rule states that for any component which
has a decomposition, the status of that component should be specified as
depicts a dialog representing the definition of the Invalid Component
Status rule. The assertion clause in the figure is constructed by using
the dialog in Figure 13.
To compose an in-ViewPoint checking rule, a method designer is required to define three types of CGs clauses. The first type represents the conditions of the rule. The second type represents the assertions of the rule. The third type defines output graphs of the rule. Output graphs illustrate missing assertions that we want to identify as a result of consistency checking procedure. A possible set of output graphs is therefore derived from assertion clauses. The use of output graphs will be illustrated in section 5.2.
illustrates a ViewPoint template for in-ViewPoint checking rules. The left
part of the Meta-Representation Actions/Rules window displays a
list of in-ViewPoint rule names. The middle part of the window displays
assertion clauses of a selected rule. The right part of the window displays
condition clauses of the rule. In this example, the Graph View of
the selected rule, i.e. the Invalid Component Status rule, will
be expanded to Figure 16. Figure
16 depicts CGs representing the rule. The top part of the window in
the figure illustrates CGs of the rule's assertions, while the bottom part
of the window shows CGs of the rule's conditions.
184.108.40.206 Inter-ViewPoint Rules
Consider the definition of the Input
Decomposition Checking rule. The rule states that if a component has
a decomposition ViewPoint, the inputs of the component must be delegated
to the ViewPoint. This rule ensures a consistent parent-child relation
between the component and its decomposition. Relations between ViewPoints
are established from the ViewPoint specifications which hold assertions
and conditions of the rule.
The process of composing an inter-ViewPoint
rule is similar to that of an in-ViewPoint rule. Figure
17 depicts the dialog for constructing the definition of the Input
Decomposition Checking rule. Figure 18 illustrates
CGs of the rule.
In the next section, we will illustrate how to use the CGs definition of representation styles and work plans to automate the process of consistency checking in ViewPoints.
5. CONSISTENCY CHECKING PROCEDURE
In this section, we employ the template definition of the Structure and Component Identification step (c.f. section 4) to construct two ViewPoints representing the main system and its decomposition of a distributed application. Then we perform consistency checking between the ViewPoints. This part of the scenario is carried out in Method Use of the Viewer+CG. We do not intend to provide details of Method Use functions here. Readers should refer to (Nuseibeh, 1994) for further explanation of Method Use.
5.1 Transformation of ViewPoints Specification to CGs
Figure 19 illustrates a ViewPoint
VP1 representing main processing of a distributed application. In
this scenario, the application contains two main processing components,
a and b. The data flows, named in and out,
ab, in the figure represent the interaction between the components
and external entities and the interaction among the components themselves.
To construct the specification of VP1, we perform the following steps.
depicts the complete transformation of the ViewPoint specification in Figure
19, including the attribute declaration of style components, to CGs.
We further develop the ViewPoint
VP2 which is the decomposition of the component b. The component
b is decomposed into two components, namely c and d.
The dataflows for the decomposition are illustrated as in Figure
illustrates the transformation of the specification of VP2 into
In a multiperspective development environment, the ViewPoints VP1 and VP2 may be independently constructed by two different developers. As a consequence, the relations between the ViewPoints need to be verified by performing consistency checking between the ViewPoints.
To ensure consistency of the specification that we have built in section 5.1, we perform consistency checking according to the rules defined in section 4.2.2. Firstly, we invoke in-ViewPoint checking at the ViewPoint VP1. Then we invoke inter-ViewPoint checking to validate the relations between VP1 and VP2.
In-ViewPoint checking process performs
the logical reasoning between selected rules and the CGs of the ViewPoint
specification in which the check is invoked. Figure
25 illustrates the result of in-ViewPoint Checking on VP1. The
checking process performs the logical reasoning between the CGs of VP1
(c.f. Figure 22) and the CGs representing the
Invalid Component Status rule (c.f. Figure
16). The result in Figure 25 shows that the
status attribute of component b is invalid. Component b was
decomposed into ViewPoint VP2, therefore, the status of the component
should be non-primitive. The top right part of the window in the figure
shows a possible inconsistency handling action by means of CGs for this
rule. As described earlier, the inconsistency action is instantiated from
output graphs of the rule. The graphs can be transformed into ViewPoint
actions. The transformation, however, is out of the scope of this work
Next, consider that we perform inter-ViewPoint checking, in particular Input Decomposition Checking rule, at VP1. The process of inter-ViewPoint checking is similar to that of in-ViewPoint checking, but it performs the checking on two or more ViewPoint specifications. The number of the specifications depends on the instantiation of ViewPoint relations according to the inter-ViewPoint rules during the execution of the check.
To perform the Input Decomposition
Checking rule, the consistency checking procedure firstly inputs the
CGs of VP1 and VP2 (c.f. Figure 22
and Figure 24, respectively) as its assertions.
Then it performs logical reasoning on the assertions and the CGs of the
Input Decomposition Checking rule (c.f. Figure
Figure 26 shows the result of the inter-ViewPoint checking on VP1. In this scenario, the input ab is missing from VP2. Therefore, there is an error of input decomposition checking between VP1 and VP2. As seen in the figure, the resulting output graphs of this check imply that dataflow ab should be defined as an input to a component in the ViewPoint VP2. Thus an inconsistency handling action can be carried out by adding a dataflow ab to one of the components in VP2.
6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In this paper, we have presented a way of conducting a consistency checking procedure in a ViewPoints-based framework. We avoid the use of a single exhaustive canonical form to translate the entire semantic sets of various representational styles. Instead, we provide an abstract way to capture semantic compatibility among ViewPoints by using CGs as a meta-representation language. The CGs are employed for the following tasks:
(1) To visualise concepts and relations
that are expressed by a method or a method fragment.
(2) To establish meta-representation binding of the concepts and the relations.
(3) To interpret an assembly action as a sequence of CGs operations. The operations are employed to implicitly transformed a ViewPoint specification into CGs.
(4) To establish in-ViewPoint rules and inter-ViewPoint rules of ViewPoints by using the resulting concepts and relations in (1).
(5) To perform logical reasoning on CGs transformation of ViewPoints specifications and the rules.
Consistency checking and integration of multiple views have been tackled by a number of researchers. The work of (Meyers, 1993) applied Semantic Program Graphs (SPGs) for representing software systems in a multiple-viewed development environment. However, the work is concerned with multiple views of program development techniques rather than those of analysis and design of specifications. Compared with CGs, the notion of SPGs is less appropriate to be used as a meta-representation language. Some SPGs notations, such as ones for scopes, name binding, and looping structure, are not encountered in the stages of the development process in a ViewPoints-based framework.
Although descriptive and logic-based consistency checking rules for ViewPoints have been proposed (Nuseibeh et al., 1993; Finkelstein, et al., 1994; Hunter, and Nuseibeh 1995), there is yet to be a generalized procedural mechanism to do so. CGs can be used as a bridge between the logic-based rules and the descriptive rules. The graphs provide intuitive notations to describe consistency checking rules and expressive power to transform the rules for logical reasoning.
The work of (Delugach, 1992a; Delugach, 1992b) presented the abilities of CGs to translate various representation styles of ViewPoints. However, it can be exhaustive to implement a number of translation rules using a canonical form as such for the ViewPoints. Alternatively, we employ CGs as a meta-representation language to describe ViewPoints. The resulting ViewPoint meta-representation forms a basis to establish consistency checking rules for different ViewPoint representation style. By doing so, we can resolve many of the difficulties found in using canonical forms and translation rules. The use of meta-representation enables method designers to establish semantic compatibility among different ViewPoint representation styles without implementing the translation rules of the styles.
By abstracting a ViewPoint specification up one level to CGs, we are able to augment the ViewPoints-based framework with an automated consistency checking procedure which is independent of ViewPoint representation styles. In addition, CGs provide an efficient foundation for communication between ViewPoints in a distributed environment as they can be served as a knowledge interchange format. An ongoing research of this work is to employ the Viewer+CG to further construct a configuration-oriented development methodology. The methodology is the synthesis of Constructive Design Approach (Kramer et al., 1990) and object-oriented UML-based notations (Booch, et al., 1997). Together with the consistency checking procedure in the Viewer+CG that we have presented, the methodology enables a team of software developers to safely and expediently decompose a distributed application, the analysis and design tasks for the application into different ViewPoints of configurable distributed components. By making the development process of a distributed application itself distributed, this resolves the difficulties, expenses and time involved in analysis and design process of the application.
Booch, G., Jacobson, I., and Rumbaugh, J. (1997). The Unified Modeling Language for Object-Oriented Development, Rational Software Cooperation, September, Documentation Set Version 1.1.
Delugach, H. S. (1992a). Analysing Multiple Views of Software Requirements, in T. E. Nagle, J. A. Nagle, L. L. Gerholz, and P. W. Eklund (Eds), Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice, Ellis Horwood.
Delugach, H. S. (1992b). Specifying Multiple-Viewed Software Requirements with Conceptual Graphs, Journal of System Software, Vol. 19, pp. 207-224.
Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh B., Finkelstein, L., and Goedicke, M. (1992). Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 2(1), World Scientific Publishing Co., March, pp. 31-58.
Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., and Nuseibeh, B. (1994). Inconsistency Handling in Multi-Perspective Specifications, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 20(8), December, pp. 569-578.
Hunter, A., and Nuseibeh, B. (1995). Managing Inconsistent Specifications: Reasoning, Analysis and Action, Technical Report Number 95/15, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK, October.
Kramer, J., Magee J., and Finkelstein, A. (1990). A Constructive Approach to the Design of Distributed Systems, Proceedings of the 10th IEEE ICDCS, Paris, May.
Leite, J. C. S. P. (1989). Viewpoint analysis: A Case Study, Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, ACM SIGSOFT, Vol. 14, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, May 19-20, pp. 111-119.
Magee, J., Kramer, J., and Sloman, M. (1989). Constructing Distributed Systems in CONIC, IEEE TSE 15, June 6.
Meyers, S. D. (1991). Difficulties in Integrating Multiview Development Systems, IEEE Software, January, pp. 49-57.
Meyers, S. D. (1993). Representing Software Systems in Multiple-View Development Environments, PhD. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Brown University, May.
Mullery, G. (1979). CORE - a method for controlled requirements expressions, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-4), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 126-135.
Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., and Finkelstein, A. (1993). Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE CS Press, Baltimore, USA, May.
Nuseibeh, B. (1994). A Multi-Perspective Framework for Method Integration, PhD. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London.
Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.