Abstract
To produce quality software and evolve them in an economic and timely fashion, enactable software process models are used for regulating development activities with the support of Process-Centered Software Engineering Environments (PCSEEs). However, due to the dynamically changing development environment, the developers do not always follow the process model in presence of unforeseen situations. As human with creativity and variant nature, each developer has his or her own way of doing development that may not be allowed by the process model. As a result, various inconsistencies arise in software processes and then the authority of the process model will be undermined. In this paper, we propose an algebraic approach to promote the efficient management of inconsistencies. With the approach, potential inconsistencies can be precisely detected and valuable diagnostic information is available to help process designers efficiently locate the detected inconsistencies. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated by experimenting it on an example process.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant Nos. 60573082, 60473060; the National Hi-Tech Research and Development Plan of China under Grant No. 2006AA01Z185; the National Key Technologies R&D Program under Grant No. 2005BA113A01.
One of the authors, Yun Yang, gratefully acknowledges the support of K. C. Wong Education Foundation, Hong Kong.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dowson, M., Fernström, C.: Towards requirements for enactment mechanisms. In: Warboys, B.C. (ed.) EWSPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 772, pp. 90–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Cugola, G., et al.: A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5(3), 191–230 (1996)
Li, M.: Expanding the horizons of software development processes: A 3-D integrated methodology. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 54–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Li, M.: Assessing 3-D integrated software development processes: A new benchmark. In: Wang, Q., et al. (eds.) SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966, pp. 15–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes – part I and II. Journal of Information and Computation 100, 1–77 (1992)
Milner, R.: The polyadic π-calculus: a tutorial. In: Logic and Algegra of Specificatio, Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Sangiorgi, D., Walker, D.: The π-calculus: a Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
Stirling, C.: Bisimulation, modal logic and model checking games. Logic Journal of the IGPL 7(1), 103–124 (1999)
Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)
Cleaveland, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalence as a bisimulation equivalence. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 11–23. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)
Cleaveland, R., Li, T., Sims, S.: The concurrency workbench of the new century: user’s manual. SUNY at Stony Brook (2000)
Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker spin. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997), doi:10.1109/32.588521
Bröckers, A., Gruhn, V.: Computer-aided verification of software process model properties. In: Rolland, C., Cauvet, C., Bodart, F. (eds.) CAiSE 1993. LNCS, vol. 685, pp. 521–546. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Cobleigh, J.M., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: Verifying properties of process definitions. In: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 96–101 (2000), citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cobleigh00verifying.html
Raunak, M.S., et al.: Definition and analysis of election processes. In: Wang, Q., et al. (eds.) SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966, pp. 178–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Cobleigh, J.M., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: FLAVERS: A finite state verification technique for software systems. IBM Systems Journal 41(1), 140–165 (2002), citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cobleigh01flavers.html
Lerner, B.S.: Verifying process models built using parameterized state machines. In: ISSTA ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 274–284. ACM Press, New York (2004), doi:10.1145/1007512.1007549
Cugola, G.: Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(11), 982–1001 (1998), doi:10.1109/32.730546
Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P., Viller, S.: Managing process inconsistency using viewpoints. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(6), 784–799 (1999), doi:10.1109/32.824395
Wang, Q., et al. (eds.): SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yang, Q. et al. (2007). An Algebraic Approach for Managing Inconsistencies in Software Processes,. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds) Software Process Dynamics and Agility. ICSP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72425-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72426-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)