1) Fabiano Ruy
An Ontological Analysis of the ISO/IEC 24744 MetamodelFabiano B. Ruy, Ricardo A. Falbo, Monalessa P. Barcellos and Giancarlo Guizzardi
Ontological analysis of a ISO standard (24744) – the analysis focused on one part of the standard SEMDM
There are other parts, AFOS (Foundational ontology for Standards) among them as a future initiative. Our view at NEMO is that the grounding should be in the Project from the beginning and not be a future perspective.
Presented UFO (A, B and C), focusing on the concepts he will need to explain the foundation he made.
Showed the existing UML model of what is called the Endeavor Level. The paper also brings the analysis of another level. Then, he moved deeper into the presented concepts of the Endeavor level to find the issues and recommend the reengineering of the model, based on UFO supported ontological analysis.
He proposed a number of recommendations, very useful ones! For example, before Producer grouped agents and objects under the same concept, now this is fixed; subtypes were regrouped forming different partitions, etc.
Reading the paper is a great idea!
2) Xiaowei Wang
Towards an Ontology of Software: a Requirements Engineering PerspectiveXiaowei Wang, Nicola Guarino, Giancarlo Guizzardi and John Mylopoulos
Motivation: using ontological clarification to solve problems arising for example as software changes. Discussing identity, we can find criteria to determine: is the software the same one, after some changes or is it a new one?
Related work: Oberle (2006) – differentiate code, execution and copy; Irmak (2013) – software as artifact.
He discussed the underlying theory of Zave and Jackson. Then he showed a view of the model, having on the left hand side a hierarchy of artifacts (such as software system, software program, software product etc.) linking it with the “how to do” label; in the left hand side, concepts related to the purpose, such as specification, execution etc., linking it to “what to do”. Then, he detailed the ontological concepts from this figure.
Software as a bridge between abstract and concrete. Interesting metaphore!
Interesting question on separation between the program and the intent. According to the questioner (and I agree), correct syntax in a program does not happen by chance. Xiaowei referred to the terminology ambiguities to justify the work. Nicola added that even when the code is intentionally crafted but when the code changes the program may remain the same. The questioner agrees that there should be a distinction among these concepts but he disagrees that the code is not somehow connected to intent. 
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário