Finding linking opportunities through relationship-based analysis

Abstract

Many techniques exist for analyzing information domains in preparation for systems design. No systematic technique exists, however, for analyzing a system or domain in terms of its relationships. This is especially important for hypermedia and World Wide Web applications, which (should) provide a high degree of linking and navigational support. RNA (Relationship Navigation Analysis) provides a systematic way of identifying useful relationships in application domains. Developers can then implement each relationship as a link. Viewing an application domain from the relationship management point of view and modeling from a philosophy of maximum access provides a unique vantage point for application design. We present RNA and its generic relationship taxonomy, focusing upon their use for system analysis. We provide a long example in the domain of an on-line bookstore.

An evaluation of the utility of web development methods

“…It appears that either there is a lack of (Fraternali and Paolini 1998), STRUDEL (Fernandez et al 1997), WARP (Bochicchio and Fiore 2004), Autoweb (Fraternali and Paolini 2000), ARANEUS (Merialdo et al 2003), WebML (Ceri et al 2003), Jessica (Goeschka and Schranz 2001) Hypertext and hypermedia SHDT (Bichler and Nusser 1996), W3DT (Scharl 2000), VHDM (Lee et al 1999), RMM (Isakowitz et al 1995), HDM (Garzotto et al 1993), OOHDM (Schwabe and Rossi 1995), RNA (Yoo and Bieber 2000), ADWIS (Takahashi and Liang 1997), EORM (Lange 1994), HADT (Hatzopoulos et al 1993), ARIADNE (Diaz et al 2001), SOHDM (Lee et al 1998), HERA (Houben et al 2003), SchemaText (Kuhnke et al 2000), WSDM (De Troyer and Leune 1998)…”

“…Methods that focus on the requirements aspect of the SDLC include RNA (Yoo and Bieber 2000) which describes a process for finding and modelling the links between information domains and CFEP (Norton 2000), which describes a current practitioner approach to web development and focuses on the requirements from a user and product viewpoint using Joint Application Development (Soltys and Crawford, Undated). AWARE (Bolchini and Paolini 2004) uses goals to assist in the identification of requirements and helps with content, interaction, navigation and presentation.…”

“…For some, this is due to their focus on early stages of the lifecycle, which does not necessitate a modelling approach. RNA (Yoo and Bieber 2000) only considers the analysis of data relationships and hence is not based on a data model. FECWAD (Lu and Yeung 1998) provides a Table 5 Methods taking an ER approach HDM (Garzotto et al 1993) ARANEUS HMT (Zoller 2001) VHDM (Lee et al 1999) WebML (Ceri et al 2003) JESSICA (Goeschka and Schranz 2001) RMM (Isakowitz et al 1995) Hera (Houben et al 2003) SHDT and W3DT (Bichler and Nusser 1996a, b) HMT (Zoller 2001) ADWIS (Lu and Yeung 1998) framework for feasibility.…”

“…A number of methods have explained their phases or techniques in enough detail to make them teachable or learnable. For example: FECWAD (Lu and Yeung 1998), WSDM (De Troyer and Leune 1998), WebML (Ceri et al 2003), SHDT/W3DT (Bichler and Nusser 1996), eW3DT (Scharl 2000) and RNA (Yoo and Bieber 2000). UCDM (Fuccella 1997) is described as having 'quick and dirty' approaches to getting user feedback for usability processes and TURBO (Ghosh 1999) is a practitioner based method.…”

Open hypermedia for product support

“…This becomes more signi®cant as the system gets larger and the cognitive burden for the author increases. There have been many approaches to this task reported in the literature, both clustering 424 G. Wills et al (Heath et al 2000) and statistical (Yoo and Bieber 2000). An additional consideration is that much of the information used to develop very large applications such as FIRM will be supplied by OEMs and in a variety of formats.…”