Using Composition Trees to Model and Compare Software Process

  • Lian Wen
  • David Tuffley
  • Terry Rout
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 155)


Software processes described by natural languages are frequently ambiguous and it is usually difficult to compare the similarity and difference between one process defined in one standard and its counterpart defined in another standard. This paper proposes Composition Tree (CT) as a graphic language to model software process based on its purpose and expected outcomes. CT is a formal graphic notation originally designed for modeling component based software system. This paper demonstrates that CT can be a powerful notation to give a clear and unambiguous description of a software process as well. This paper also investigates an algorithm which can compare two CT-modeled processes and provide an intuitive view called a Comparison Composition Tree (CCT) to highlight the differences and similarities between the two processes.


Software Process Behavior Engineering Composition Tree Process Reference Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Behavior Engineering Web Site,
  2. 2.
    Box, G.E.P.: Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In: Launer, R.L., Wilkinson, G.N. (eds.) Robustness in Statistics. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dromey, R.G.: Climbing Over the ’No Silver Bullet’ Brick Wall. IEEE Software 23(2), 118–120 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dromey, R.G.: Formalizing the Transition from Requirements to Design. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) Mathematical Frameworks for Component Software, Models for Analysis and Synthesis, ch. 6, pp. 173–206. World Scientific, Singapore (2006), ISBN 981-270-017-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dromey, R.G.: System Composition: Constructive Support for the Analysis and Design of Large Systems. In: SETE-2005, Systems Engineering/Test and Evaluation Conference, Brisbane, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feiler, P.H., Humphrey, W.S.: Software Process Development and Enactment. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, CMU/SEY-92-TR-04, p. 11 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC 15288:2002. Information technology - System engineering – System life cycle process (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC 12207:2008 – Information technology – Software engineering – Software life cycle processes (2008) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC TR 24774. Software and systems engineering – Life cycle management – Guidelines for process description (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Podorozhny, R.M., Perry, D.E., Osterweil, L.J.: Artifact-based functional comparison of software processes. In: 4th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, May 2003, pp. V.29.1–V.29.10 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scacchi, W.: Process Models in Software Engineering. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheard, S.A.: The frameworks quagmire, a brief look. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual International INCOSE, Symposium (INCOSE 1997) (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tuffley, D., Rout, T.: Behavior Engineering as Process Model Verification Tool. In: The proceedings of the 10th International SPICE conference (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wen, L., Dromey, R.G.: From Requirements Change to Design Change: A Formal Path. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 104–113 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lian Wen
    • 1
  • David Tuffley
    • 1
  • Terry Rout
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Quality InstituteGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations