Describing and managing activities, resources, and constraints of software development processes is a challenging goal for many organizations. A first generation of Software Process Modeling Languages (SPMLs) appeared in the 1990s but failed to gain broad industrial support. Recently, however, a second generation of SPMLs has appeared, leveraging the strong industrial interest for modeling languages such as UML. In this paper, we propose a comparison of these UML-based SPMLs. While not exhaustive, this comparison concentrates on SPMLs most representative of the various alternative approaches, ranging from UML-based framework specializations to full-blown executable metamodeling approaches. To support the comparison of these various approaches, we propose a frame gathering a set of requirements for process modeling, such as semantic richness, modularity, executability, conformity to the UML standard, and formality. Beyond discussing the relative merits of these approaches, we also evaluate the overall suitability of these UML-based SPMLs for software process modeling. Finally, we discuss the impact of these approaches on the current state of the practice, and conclude with lessons we have learned in doing this comparison.

/pdf/a-comparison-of-six-uml-based-languages-for-software-process-2995d458nx.pdf

A Comparison of Six UML-Based Languages for Software Process Modeling

Context: Organizations working in software development are aware that processes are very important assets as well as they are very conscious of the need to deploy well-defined processes with the goal of improving software product development and, particularly, quality. Software process modeling languages are an important support for describing and managing software processes in software-intensive organizations. Objective: This paper seeks to identify what software process modeling languages have been defined in last decade, the relationships and dependencies among them and, starting from the current state, to define directions for future research. Method: A systematic literature review was developed. 1929 papers were retrieved by a manual search in 9 databases and 46 primary studies were finally included. Results: Since 2000 more than 40 languages have been first reported, each of which with a concrete purpose. We show that different base technologies have been used to define software process modeling languages. We provide a scheme where each language is registered together with the year it was created, the base technology used to define it and whether it is considered a starting point for later languages. This scheme is used to illustrate the trend in software process modeling languages. Finally, we present directions for future research. Conclusion: This review presents the different software process modeling languages that have been developed in the last ten years, showing the relevant fact that model-based SPMLs (Software Process Modeling Languages) are being considered as a current trend. Each one of these languages has been designed with a particular motivation, to solve problems which had been detected. However, there are still several problems to face, which have become evident in this review. This let us provide researchers with some guidelines for future research on this topic.

http://romisatriawahono.net/lecture/rm/survey/software%20engineering/Software%20Process%20Improvement/Borgonon%20-%20Software%20Process%20Modeling%20Language%20-%202014.pdf

Software process modeling languages: A systematic literature review

In this paper, we describe our ongoing work on model transformation chains. Model transformation chains refer to the sequences of model transformations in Model Driven Engineering (MDE). The transformations represent and formalise typical model/software engineering activities, and their chaining is the natural composition of such activities. Model transformation chains found in industrial practice vary widely, depending on the specific domain they are used in. By explicitly modelling development activities, these activities can be analysed and the MDE process may be improved. As a step towards such analyses, we propose an integrated framework to describe all the artifacts involved in model transformation chains, as well as the means to execute “enact” those chains. We describe the Formalism Transformation Graph + Process Model (FTG+PM) which is at the heart of our framework in detail.

http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/levi/30_publications/files/paper_sdl2013.pdf

FTG+PM: An Integrated Framework for Investigating Model Transformation Chains

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01662336/document

Omniscient debugging for executable DSLs

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.

eSPEM – a SPEM extension for enactable behavior modeling

One major advantage of executable models is that once constructed, they can be run, checked, validated and improved in short incremental and iterative cycles. In the field of software process modeling, process models have not yet reached the level of precision that would allow their execution. Recently the OMG issued a new revision of its standard for software process modeling, namely SPEM2.0. However, even if executability was defined as a mandatory requirement in the RFP (request for proposal), the adopted specification does not fulfill it. This paper presents a critical analysis on the newly defined standard and addresses its lacks in terms of executability. An approach is proposed in order to extend the standard with a set of concepts and behavioural semantics that would allow SPEM2.0 process models to be checked through a mapping to Petri nets and monitored through a transformation into BPEL.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00371555/document

R. Bendraou

Papers

Definition of an Executable SPEM 2.0