Skip to main content

A Set of Well-Formedness Rules to Checking the Consistency of the Software Processes Based on SPEM 2.0

  • Conference paper
  • 1091 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 102))

Abstract

Considering the need to avoid errors in a software process, this paper proposes checking it before enactment. Process checking is the activity of verifying the correctness and the consistency of a process. In this paper, process checking is made from a set of well-formedness rules specified from the SPEM 2.0 metamodel. The well-formedness rules are described using the Unified Modeling Language - UML multiplicity and First-Order Predicate Logic – FOLP and their use and evaluation are made using a part of the OpenUP process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison Wesley, NJ (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Open (2006), http://www.open.org.au

  4. Xu, P., Ramesh, B.: A Tool for the Capture and Use of Process Knowledge in Process Tailoring. In: Proc. of Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ralyté, J.: Comparison of Method Chunks and Method Fragments for Situational Method Engineering. In: 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A Method to Build Information Systems Engineering Process Metamodels. The Journal of Systems and Software (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A Work Product Pool Approach to Methodology Specification and Enactment. Journal of Systems and Software (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. OMG, SPEM 1.1 (2002), http://www.omg.org/

  9. OMG: SPEM 2.0 (2007), http://www.omg.org/

  10. Pereira, E.B., Bastos, R.M., Oliveira, T.C., Móra, M.C.: Improving the Consistency of SPEM-Based Software Processes. In: 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ICEIS 2011, Beijing, China (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Puviani, M., Serugendo, G.D.M., Frei, R., Cabri, G.: Methodologies for Self-organising Systems: a SPEM Approach. In: International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Habli, I., Kelly, T.: A Model-Driven Approach to Assuring Process Reliability. In: 19th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Serour, M.K., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Introducing Agility – A Case Study of SME Using the OPEN. In: 28th Computer Sof. and Applications Conf. (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Cregut, X., Gervais, M.P.: Definition of an Executable SPEM 2.0. In: 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wistrand, K., Karlsson, F.: Method Components – Rationale Revealed. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 189–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Gnatz, M., Marschall, F., Popp, G., Rausch, A., Schwerin, W.: The Living Software Development Process (2003), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.60.3371

  17. Ralyté, J., Backlund, P., Kuhn, H., Jeusfeld, M.A.: Method Chunks for Interoperability. In: 25th Int. Conference on Conceptual Modelling (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bajec, M., Vavpotic, D., Krisper, M.: Practice-Driven Approach for Creating Project-Specific Software Development Methods. Information and Software Technology (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hsueh, N.L., Shen, W.H., Yang, Z.W., Yang, D.L.: Applying UML and Software Simulation for Process Definition, Verification and Validation. Information and Software Technology, 897–911 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Atkinson, D.C., Weeks, D.C., Noll, J.: Tool Support for Iterative Software Process Modeling. Information and Software Technology, 493–514 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A Systematic Review of UML Model Consistency Management. Information and Software Technology, 1631–1645 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pereira, E.B., Bastos, R.M., Oliveira, T.C., Móra, M.C. (2012). A Set of Well-Formedness Rules to Checking the Consistency of the Software Processes Based on SPEM 2.0. In: Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds) Enterprise Information Systems. ICEIS 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 102. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29958-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29958-2_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29957-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29958-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics