"Domain Modeling Representation Strategies: Towards a Comparative Framework"

Leaders:
Mark Simos - Organon Motives, Inc.
(co-leader(s) to be recruited/drafted at the event)
Scope:
Within the reuse community, the quest for a "domain analysis of domain analysis" remains something of a cross between the Holy Grail and a solution of the NP-completeness problem. This working group focused on the much narrower problem of establishing a workable comparative framework for domain modeling representation strategies. To make the group experience both tractable and fun, we treated the exercise as a chance to discover and practice our domain modeling skills in collaborative learning work. For example, the proposed scope assumed that representation issues could be usefully dealt with separately from domain engineering process issues. Testing this hypothesis required us to negotiate boundary issues, explore alternative framework structures, etc., all skills inherent in domain modeling itself.

Goals:
1. Our own enriched experience of domain modeling, focusing on a part of the domain engineering discipline itself as a subject area. We also choose to work with a more concrete real world hypothetical scenario to ground our discussion of alternative representations (but not to attempt to enact a full domain analysis).

2. A draft comparative framework as a starting point for ongoing revision and evolution. The framework would ideally include both a feature model for the representations themselves and a decision support model to aid in matching particular representation strategies to different application contexts.

Preparation:

The participants were asked to come prepared with any or all of the following:

1. An example or case study of a representation style or strategy selected for a given domain modeling task. Can the participant articulate the process by which the representation strategy was selected, the rationale for its selection, ways in which the representation had to be modified or adapted to suit the needs of the domain modeling task? What was the outcome of the representation's adoption for the task?

2. An "advocacy position" for a particular representation strategy. What aspects address requirements specific to domain modeling? What are its advantages and limitations?

3. Any other contributions to the framework that will (hopefully) emerge from the collective group modeling: selection criteria, differentiating features, implicit assumptions in the framework, etc.

Working Group Final Report