Skip to main content

Formalisms to Support the Definition of Processes

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper emphasizes the importance of defining processes rigorously, completely, clearly, and in detail in order to support the complex projects that are essential to the modern world. The paper argues that such process definitions provide needed structure and context for the development of effective software systems. The centrality of process is argued by enumerating seven key ways in which processes and their definitions are expected to provide important benefits to society. The paper provides an example of a process formalism that makes good progress towards the difficult goal of being simultaneously rigorous, detailed, broad, and clear. Early experience suggests that these four key characteristics of this formalism do indeed seem to help it to support meeting the seven key benefits sought from process definitions. Additional research is suggested in order to gain more insights into needs in the area of process definition formalisms.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Avrunin G S, Clarke L A, Henneman E A, Osterweil L J. Complex medical processes as context for embedded systems. ACM SIGBED Review, Special Issue on Workshop on Innovative Techniques for Certification of Embedded Systems, 3(4): 9–14.

  2. Henneman E A, Avrunin G S, Clarke L A, Osterweil L J, Andrzejewski C, Merrigan K, Cobleigh R, Frederick K, Katz-Bassett E, Henneman P L. Increasing patient safety and efficiency in transfusion medicine using formal process definition. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, January 2007, 21: 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schweik C M, Osterweil L J, Sondheimer N, Thomas C. Analyzing processes for E-government development: The emergence of process modeling languages. Journal of E-Government, 2004, 1(4): 63–89.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ellison A M, Osterweil L J, Hadley J L, Wise A, Boose E, Clarke L A, Foster D R, Hanson A, Jensen D, Kuzeja P, Riseman E. Analytic webs support the synthesis of ecological data sets. Ecology, June 2006, 87(6): 1345–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Osterweil L J. Software processes are software too. In Proc. the Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey, CA, USA, March 30–April 2, 1987, pp.2–13.

  6. Osterweil L J. Software processes are software too, Revisited. In Proc. the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, USA, May 1997, pp.540–548.

  7. Clarke L A, Avrunin G S, Osterweil L J. Using software engineering technology to improve the quality of medical processes. In Proc. Int. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), Leipzig, Germany, May 2008, pp.889–898.

  8. Boose E R, Ellison A M, Osterweil L J, Clarke L A, Podorozhny R, Hadley J L, Wise A, Foster D R. Ensuring reliable datasets for environmental models and forecasts. Ecological Informatics, Oct. 2007, 2(3): 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhu L, Osterweil L J, Staples M, Kannengiesser U. Challenges observed in the definition of reference business processes. In Proc. the 3rd International Workshop on Business Process Design (BPD’07), Brisbane, Australia, Sept. 2007, pp.95–107.

  10. Shao T, Lin Z, Krishnamurthy S, Grosse I R, Osterweil L J. Automated fault tree analysis for engineering design optimization. In Proc. 2007 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, Sept. 4–7, 2007.

  11. Raunak M S, Chen B, Elssamadisy A, Clarke L A, Osterweil L J. Definition and analysis of election processes. Software Process Change. Wang Q, Pfahl D, Raffo D M, Wernick P (eds.), Int. Software Process Workshop/Int. Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (SPW/ProSIM 2006), Shanghai, China, May 2006, LNCS 3966, pp.178–185.

  12. Fischer L (ed.). The Workflow Handbook. The Workflow Management Coalition, 2002.

  13. Hagen G Alonso. Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, October 2000, 26(10): 943–958.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Rusinkiewicz M, Georgakopoulos D. From coordination of workflow and group activities to composition and management of virtual enterprises. In Proc. DANTE, Kyoto, Japan, Nov. 1999, pp.3–15.

  15. Brooks F P. The Mythical Man-Month. AddisonWesley, 1975.

  16. Osterweil L. Unifying microprocess and macroprocess research. Unifying the Software Process Spectrum. Li M, Boehm B, Osterweil L (eds.), Int. Software Process Workshop (SPW 2005), Beijing, China, LNCS 3840, Berlin: Springer Verlag, Germany, 2005, pp.68–74.

  17. Edwards S A, Lee E A. The semantics and execution of a synchronous block-diagram language. Science of Computer Programming, July 2003, 48(1): 21–42.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Emmerich W, Gruhn V. FUNSOFT nets: A Petri-net based software process modeling language. In Proc. the Thirteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Austin, USA, May 1991, pp.175–184.

  19. Sutton Jr. S M, Osterweil L J. The design of a next generation process language. In Proc. the Joint Sixth European Software Engineering Conference and the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp.142–158.

  20. Kaiser G E. Rule-based modeling of the software development process. In Proc. the Fourth International Software Process Workshop, Devon, UK, 1988, pp.84–86.

  21. Suzuki M, Katayama T. Meta-operations in the process model HFSP for the dynamics and flexibility of software processes. In Proc. the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, CA, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991, pp.202–217.

  22. Fernstrom C. State models and protocols in process-centered environment. In Proc. the Eighth International Software Process Workshop, Wadern, Germany, IEEE, 1993.

  23. Wise A. Little-JIL 1.0 Language Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 1998.

  24. Wise A. Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA, 2006.

  25. Christov S, Chen B, Avrunin G S, Clarke L A, Osterweil L J, Brown D, Cassells L, Mertens W. Rigorously defining and analyzing medical processes: An experience report. In Workshop on Model Based Trustworthy Health Information Systems, Nashville, USA, September 2007, pp.118–131.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leon J. Osterweil.

Additional information

This material is based upon the work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Award Nos. CCR-0427071, CCR-0204321 and CCR-0205575.

The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the National Science Foundation, or the U.S. Government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Osterweil, L.J. Formalisms to Support the Definition of Processes. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 24, 198–211 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-009-9218-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-009-9218-3

Keywords