Advertisement

eSPEM – A SPEM Extension for Enactable Behavior Modeling

  • Ralf Ellner
  • Samir Al-Hilank
  • Johannes Drexler
  • Martin Jung
  • Detlef Kips
  • Michael Philippsen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6138)

Abstract

OMG’s SPEM – by means of its (semi-)formal notation – allows for a detailed description of development processes and methodologies, but can only be used for a rather coarse description of their behavior. Concepts for a more fine-grained behavior model are considered out of scope of the SPEM standard and have to be provided by other standards like BPDM/BPMN or UML. However, a coarse granularity of the behavior model often impedes a computer-aided enactment of a process model. Therefore, in this paper we present eSPEM, an extension of SPEM, that is based on the UML meta-model and focused on fine-grained behavior and life-cycle modeling and thereby supports automated enactment of development processes.

Keywords

Behavior Modeling Software Development Process Object Management Group Eclipse Modeling Framework Business Process Modeling Notation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification Version 2.0 (April 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure Version 2.2 (February 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruhn, V.: Process Centered Software Engineering Environments – A Brief History and Future Challenges. Annals of Software Engineering 14(1-4), 363–382 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acuña, S.T., Ferré, X.: Software Process Modelling. In: Proc. World Multiconf. on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, FL, pp. 237–242 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R., Jaccheri, M.L.: Process Modelling Languages. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500, pp. 27–52. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaccheri, M.L., Baldi, M., Divitini, M.: Evaluating the requirements for software process modeling languages and systems. In: Process support for Distributed Team-based Software Development (PDTSD 1999), Orlando, FL, pp. 570–578 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development Version 1.2. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (August 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 15504-5:2006 – Information technology – Process Assessment – Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model (March 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bendraou, R., Jezequel, J.M., Gervais, M.P., Blanc, X.: A Comparison of Six UML-Based Languages for Software Process Modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 99 (2009) (PrePrint)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Pearson Studium, London (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation Version 1.2 (January 2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balduino, R.: Open Unified Process (OpenUP). Technical report, Eclipse Process Framework Project (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V-Modell®XT Authors: V-Modell®XT, Version 1.3 (Feburary 2009), http://www.v-modell.iabg.de/
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 24744:2007 – Software Engineering – Metamodel for Development Methodologies (February 2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Longman (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Longman (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Research Group Applied Software Engineering: Integrated Tool Chain for Meta-model-based Process Modelling and Execution (March 2010), http://pswt.cs.fau.de/EN/research/IWKMMASWEP/
  18. 18.
    Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse Process Framework Project (EPF) (March 2010), http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  19. 19.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too. In: Proc. 9th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, Monterey, CA, pp. 2–13 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. (April 2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Active Endpoints Inc., Adobe Systems Inc., BEA Systems Inc., IBM Corp., Oracle Inc., and SAP AG: WS-BPEL Extension for People (BPEL4People), Version 1.0. (June 2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Gervais, M.P.: Definition of an Executable SPEM 2.0. In: Proc. 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conf., Nagoya, Japan, pp. 390–397 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S.: Using and Extending the SPEM Specifications to Represent Agent Oriented Methodologies. In: Proc. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering IX, 9th Intl. Workshop, Estoril, Portugal, pp. 46–59 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P.: Agent-Oriented Methodologies. Idea Group (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Odell, J.J.: Power types. J. of Object-Oriented Programming 7(2), 8–12 (1994)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: The Rationale of Powertype-based Metamodelling to Underpin Software Development Methodologies. In: Proc. 2nd Asia-Pacific Conf. on Conceptual Modelling, Newcastle, Australia, pp. 7–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Firesmith, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The OPEN Process Framework: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Longman (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: engineering for information systems development methods and tools. Information Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heimann, P., Joeris, G., Krapp, C.A., Westfechtel, B.: DYNAMITE: Dynamic Task Nets for Software Process Management. In: Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, Berlin, Germany, pp. 331–341 (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schürr, A.: Rapid Programming with Graph Rewrite Rules. In: Proc. USENIX Symp. on Very High Level Languages, Santa Fee, NM, October 1994, pp. 83–100 (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bendraou, R., Gervais, M.P., Blanc, X.: UML4SPM: A UML2.0-Based Metamodel for Software Process Modelling. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 17–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Nitto, E., Lavazza, L., Schiavoni, M., Tracanella, E., Trombetta, M.: Deriving executable process descriptions from UML. In: Proc. 24th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, New York, NY, pp. 155–165 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chou, S.C.: A Process Modeling Language Consisting of High Level UML-based Diagrams and Low Level Process Language. J. of Object Technology 1(4), 137–163 (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Franch, X., Ribó, J.M.: A Structured Approach to Software Process Modelling. In: Proc. 24th EUROMICRO Conf., Washington, DC, vol. 2, pp. 753–762 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bendraou, R., Sadovykh, A., Gervais, M.P., Blanc, X.: Software Process Modeling and Execution: The UML4SPM to WS-BPEL Approach. In: Proc. 33rd EUROMICRO Conf. on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, Lübeck, Germany, pp. 314–321 (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bendraou, R., Jezéquél, J.M., Fleurey, F.: Combining Aspect and Model-Driven Engineering Approaches for Software Process Modeling and Execution. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds.) ICSP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5543, pp. 148–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models RFP (April 2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muller, P.A., Fleurey, F., Jezéquél, J.M.: Weaving Executability into Object-Oriented Meta-languages. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 264–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Engels, G., Förster, A., Heckel, R., Thöne, S.: Process Modeling using UML. In: Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A. (eds.) Process-Aware Information Systems, pp. 85–117. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jäger, D., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Using UML for Software Process Modeling. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 91–108. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Ellner
    • 1
  • Samir Al-Hilank
    • 2
  • Johannes Drexler
    • 2
  • Martin Jung
    • 2
  • Detlef Kips
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Philippsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science Department 2, Programming Systems GroupUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Develop group Basys GmbHErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations