Advertisement

A Metaprocesses-Oriented Methodology Based on RAS (Software Assets Reuse)

  • Javier Darío FernándezEmail author
  • María V. Hurtado
  • José Luis Garrido
  • Manuel Noguera
  • John Freddy Duitama
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 657)

Abstract

Software reuse in the early stages is a key issue in rapid development of applications. Recently, several methodologies have been proposed for the reuse of components, but mainly in code generation as artifacts. However, these methodologies partially consider the domain analysis, the business modeling, and the reuse through of components. This paper introduces a metaprocess-oriented methodology based on reuse it as software assets starting from specifications and analysis of the domain. The approach includes the definition of a conceptual level to adequately represent the domain, a reuse process to specify the metaprocess as software assets, and an implementation level which defines the rules for conceptual level and reuse of metaprocess. The methodology has been applied successfully to the first phase, i.e. at the specification of the conceptual level in the field of e-health, in particular in monitoring system of patients with cardiovascular risk, but our work has advances in reuse of models for implementation in other contexts contributing to productivity in software development.

Keywords

Metaprocess Processes Reuse e-health 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank ARTICA research of Colciencias, TICs Ministery (Colombia) and COOPEN research European Community and University of Granada.

References

  1. 1.
    Acuña, S., Ferré, X.: Software process modelling. In: Proceedings of the 5th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI 2001), Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 1–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T.: Nivel: a metamodelling language with a formal semantics. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 521–549 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baisley, D., Björkander, M., Bock, C., Cook, S., Desfray, P., Dykman, N., Ek, A., Frankel, D., Gery, E., Haugen, Ø., Iyengar, S., Kobryn, C., Møller-Pedersen, B., Odell, J., Övergaard, G., Palmkvist, K., Ramackers, G., Rumbaugh, J., Selic, B., Weigert, T., Williams, L.: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure v 2.2. Object Managment Group (OMG), February 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cechticky, V., Egli, M., Pasetti, A., Rohlik, O., Vardanega, T.: A UML2 profile for reusable and verifiable software components for real-time applications. In: Morisio, Maurizio (ed.) ICSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4039, pp. 312–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11763864_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R., Nguyen, M.: Classification of metaprocesses and their models. In: Software Process, pp. 167–175 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Freitas, J.: Model business processes for flexibility and re-use: a component-oriented approach. IBM Dev. Works J., 1–11 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Software Process Modeling and Technology. Research Studies Press Ltd., Londres (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K.: Software Factories: Assembling Aplications with Patterns, Model, Frameworks and Tools. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kühne, T.: Editorial to the theme issue on metamodelling. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 447–449 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levendovszky, T., László, L., Mészáros, T.: Supporting domain-specific model patterns with metamodeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 501–520 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noguera, M., Hurtado, M., Rodríguez, M., Chung, L., Garrido, J.: Ontology-driven analysis of UML-based collaborative processes using OWL-DL and CPN. Sci. Comput. Program. 75, 726–760 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification doc.ormsc/(2008-04-01)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) v1.2. Object Managment Group (OMG) (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG. Reusable Asset Specification. OMG Available Specification Version 2.2. (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., Van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A., Mendling, J.: From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(1), 2 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park, S., Park, S., Sugumaran, V.: Extending reusable asset specification to improve software reuse. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2007), pp. 1473–1478 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramsin, R., Paige, R.: Process-centered review of object oriented software development methodologies. Computing 40(1), 1–89 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodríguez, J., Ochoa, S., Pino, J., Herskovic, V., Favela, J., Mejía, D., Morán, A.: Towards a reference architecture for the design of mobile shared workspaces. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 27, 109–118 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rolland, C., Prakash N.: On the adequate modeling of business process families. Université Paris1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Francia (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Darío Fernández
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • María V. Hurtado
    • 1
  • José Luis Garrido
    • 1
  • Manuel Noguera
    • 1
  • John Freddy Duitama
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering, E.T.S.I.I.University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Industrial EngineeringUniversity Pontificia BolivarianaMedellinColombia
  3. 3.Department of Systems EngineeringUniversity of AntioquiaMedellinColombia

Personalised recommendations