Technical Software Development Process in the XML Domain

  • Liming Zhu
  • Tu Tak Tran
  • Mark Staples
  • Ross Jeffery
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)


Background: A Technical Development Process (TDP) is a development process for a particular technology, such as XML, service orientation, object orientation or a programming language. Unlike software development life-cycle processes, TDPs provide concrete and detailed guidance to software engineers working in a particular technology domain. TDPs are currently not well understood in terms of description, modelling and interactions with life-cycle processes. Aim: In this paper, we investigate what are TDPs in the XML domain and how can TDPs be modelled using existing development process modelling notations and tools. Method: We extracted XML specific TDPs from literatures, interviews and internal documentation within software development organizations and conducted systematic verifications and validations. Results: We identify different types of TDPs in the XML domain and propose mechanisms to model TDPs using Software Process Engineering Meta-models (SPEM) in the Eclipse Modelling Framework (EPF). Conclusion: The results demonstrate the feasibility of explicitly identifying and modelling of TDPs in the context of software process modelling and how they are used in software development. The results help further bridge the gap between macro-processes (life-cycle and management-centred processes) and micro-processes (e.g. developer-centred TDPs).


Software Development Generic Task Eclipse Modelling Framework Agile Method Spiral Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Unifying Microprocess and Macroprocess Research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu, L., Jeffery, R., Huo, M., Tran, T.T.: Effects of Architecture and Technical Development Process on Micro-Process. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 49–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu, L., Staples, M., Jeffery, R.: Scaling Up Software Architecture Evaluation Processes. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5007, pp. 112–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waldt, D.: The extensibility manifesto: A blueprint for XML implementation. In: XML (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhuta, J., Boehm, B., Meyers, S.: Process Elements: Components of Software Process Architectures (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG: Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) v2.0 Draft (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eclipse Process Framework (EPF),
  8. 8.
    Münch, J.: Transformation-based Creation of Custom-tailored Software Process Models. In: International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (ProSim), pp. 50–56. Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johansson, E., Nedstam, J., Wartenberg, F., Host, M.: A Qualitative Methodology for Tailoring SPE Activities in Embedded Platform Development. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 39–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jaufman, O., Munch, J.: Acquisition of a Project-Specific Process. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 328–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanssen, G.K., Westerheim, H., Bjornson, F.O.: Tailoring RUP to a Defined Project Type: A Case Study. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 314–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Information and Software Technology 47, 49–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling Software Development Methodologies: A Conceptual Foundation. Journal of Systems and Software 18, 1778–1796 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurniawati, F., Jeffery, R.: The use and effects of an electronic process guide and experience repository: a longitudinal study. Information and Software Technology 48, 566–577 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scott, L., Carvalho, L., Jeffery, R., Ambra, J., Becher-Kornstaedt, U.: Understanding the use of an electronic process guide. Information and Software Technology 44, 601–616 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu, L., Osterweil, L., Staples, M., Kannengiesser, U., Simidchieva, B.I.: Desiderata for Languages to be Used in the Definition of Reference Business Processes. International Journal of Software and Informatics 1, 37–66 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liming Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tu Tak Tran
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ross Jeffery
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.NICTAEveleighAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations