Functional software architecture: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:22, 20 January 2009

Revision as of 19:20, 26 December 2010

Line 1:

A '''Functional Software Architecture''' ('''FSA''') is an architectural model that identifies [[Enterprise architecture|enterprise]] functions, interactions and corresponding [[Information Technology|IT]] needs. These functions can be used as reference by different [[___domain expert]]s to develop IT-systems as part of a co-operative information-driven enterprise. In this way both [[software engineers]] and enterprise architects are able to create an information-driven, integrated organizational environment.

==Overview==

Line 54:

===Petri Nets===

[[Petri Net]]s are known tools to model manufacturing systems.<ref>Silva, M. and Valette, R. (1989); Petri nets and Flexible manufacturing. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, 424, 374–417.</ref>. They are highly expressive and provide good formalisms for the modeling of [[concurrent system]]s. The most advantageous properties are that of simple representation of states, concurrent system transitions and capabilities to model the duration of transitions.

Petri Nets therefore can be used to model certain business processes with corresponding state and transitions or activities with in and outputs. Moreover, Petri Nets can be used to model different software systems and transitions between these systems. In this way programmers use it as a schematic coding reference.

Line 67:

In this way EFD has many similarities with IDEF0 diagrams, which also represent in a hierarchical way business processes as a combination of functions and triggers. Difference is that an EFD places the business functions in an organization hierarchical perspective, which outlines the downstream of certain processes in the organization. On the contrary, IDEF0 diagrams show responsibilities of certain business functions through the use of arrows. Also, IDEF0 has a clear representation of inputs and outputs of every (sub)function.

EFD possibly could be used as a business front-end to a software modeling language like UML. The major resemblance with IDEF as a modeling tool indicates that it can be done. However, more research is needed to improve the EFD technique in such a way that formal mappings to UML can be made.<ref name="Kim">Kim & Weston & Hodgson & Lee (2002); The complementary use of IDEF and UML. Information system engineering, Deajon University South Korea, Computers & Industrial Engineering 50, 35–56.</ref> about the complementary use of IDEF and UML has contributed to the acceptance of IDEF as business-front end. A similar study should be done with EFD and UML.

==References==