Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 5–29 | Cite as

VbTrace: using view-based and model-driven development to support traceability in process-driven SOAs

  • Huy TranEmail author
  • Uwe Zdun
  • Schahram Dustdar
Theme Section


In process-driven, service-oriented architectures, there are a number of important factors that hinder the traceability between design and implementation artifacts. First of all, there are no explicit links between process design and implementation languages not only due to the differences of syntax and semantics but also the differences of granularity. The second factor is the complexity caused by tangled process concerns that multiplies the difficulty of analyzing and understanding the trace dependencies. Finally, there is a lack of adequate tool support for establishing and maintaining the trace dependencies between process designs and implementations. We present in this article a view-based, model-driven traceability approach that tackles these challenges. Our approach supports (semi-)automatically eliciting and (semi-)formalizing trace dependencies among process development artifacts at different levels of granularity and abstraction. A proof-of-concept tool support has been realized, and its functionality is illustrated via an industrial case study.


Software traceability View-based Model-driven Process-driven SOA Tool support 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ActiveEndpoints (2008) ActiveBPEL Engine. Accessed 3 Feburary 2008
  2. 2.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., Nolan, B.T., Rubin, J., Shaham-Gafni, Y.: Model traceability. IBM Syst. J. Model-Driven Softw Dev 45(3), (2006). doi: 10.1147/sj.453.0515
  3. 3.
    Aleksy, M., Hildenbrand, T., Obergfell, C., Schwind, M.: A pragmatic approach to traceability in model-driven development. In: PRIMIUM (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander, I.: Semiautomatic tracing of requirement versions to use cases—experience and challenges. In: TEFSE’03: 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniol, G., Canfora, G., de Lucia, A., Casazza, G.: Information retrieval models for recovering traceability links between code and documentation. In: ICSM ’00: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’00), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, p. 40 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antoniol G., Canfora G., Casazza G., Lucia A.D., Merlo E.: Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(10), 970–983 (2002). doi: 10.1109/TSE.2002.1041053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bondé, L., Boulet, P., Dekeyser, J.L.: Traceability and Interoperability at Different Levels of Abstraction in Model-Driven Engineering, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 263–273. Applications of specification and design languages for SoCs (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Constantopoulos P., Jarke M., Mylopoulos J., Vassiliou Y.: The software information base: a server for reuse. The VLDB J. 4(1), 1–43 (1995). doi: 10.1007/BF01232471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eclipse (2006) Eclipse modeling framework. Accessed 3 January 2008
  10. 10.
    Egyed A.: A scenario-driven approach to trace dependency analysis. IEEE. Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(2), 116–132 (2003). doi: 10.1109/TSE.2003.1178051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evenson, M., Schreder, B.: SemBiz deliverable: D4.1 use case definition and functional requirements analysis, (2007).
  12. 12.
    Frankel D.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galvão, I., Goknil, A.: Survey of traceability approaches in model-driven engineering. In: EDOC, pp. 313–326 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Contribution structures [requirements artifacts]. In: Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’95), pp. 100–107, (1995). doi: 10.1109/ISRE.1995.512550
  15. 15.
    Hayes, J.H., Dekhtyar, A., Osborne, J.: Improving requirements tracing via information retrieval. In: Requirements Engineering Conference. Proceedings 11th IEEE International, pp. 138–147 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hentrich, C., Zdun, U.: Patterns for process-Oriented integration in service-oriented architectures. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (EuroPLoP 2006), Irsee, Germany, pp. 1–45 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmes, T., Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S. (2008) Modeling human aspects of business processes—a view-based, model-driven approach. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A., (eds) 4th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA) 2008. Springer, LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 246–261Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IBM (2006) Travel booking process. Accessed 17 April 2008)
  19. 19.
    Intalio, Inc (2006) Eclipse STP BPMN Modeler. Accessed 9 May 2008
  20. 20.
    Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: a framework for resolving the vicious circle. In: Business Process Management, pp. 82–97 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Knethen, A., Paech, B., Kiedaisch, F., Houdek, F.: Systematic requirements recycling through abstraction and traceability. In: Requirements Engineering, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE Joint International Conference on, pp. 273–281, (2002). doi: 10.1109/ICRE.2002.1048538
  22. 22.
    Kozlenkov, A., Zisman, A.: Are their design specifications consistent with our requirements? In: RE ’02: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 145–156 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Letelier, P.: A framework for requirements traceability in UML-based projects. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering—17th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 32–41 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lindvall M., Sandahl K.: Practical implications of traceability. Softw Pract Exp 26(10), 1161–1180 (1996). doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(199610)26:10<1161::AID-SPE58>3.3.CO;2-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lucia A.D., Fasano F., Oliveto R., Tortora G.: Recovering traceability links in software artifact management systems using information retrieval methods. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 16(4), 13 (2007). doi: 10.1145/1276933.1276934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lucia, A.D., Oliveto, R., Tortora, G.: Adams re-trace: traceability link recovery via latent semantic indexing. In: ICSE ’08: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 839–842. doi: 10.1145/1368088.1368216 (2008)
  27. 27.
    Mäder, P., Philippow, I., Riebisch, M.: A traceability link model for the unified process. In: SNPD (3), pp. 700–705 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mader, P., Gotel, O., Philippow, I.: Rule-based maintenance of post-requirements traceability relations. In: International Requirements Engineering, 2008. RE ’08. 16th IEEE, pp. 23–32. doi: 10.1109/RE.2008.24 (2008)
  29. 29.
    Maletic, J.I., Munson, E.V., Marcus, A., Nguyen, T.N.: Using a hypertext model for traceability link conformance analysis. In: TEFSE’03: 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marcus, A., Maletic, J.I.: Recovering documentation-to-source-code traceability links using latent semantic indexing. In: ICSE ’03: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 125–135, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayr, C., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: Model-driven integration and management of data access objects in process-driven SOAs. In: ServiceWave, pp. 62–73 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mendling, J., Hafner, M.: From inter-organizational workflows to process execution: generating BPEL from WS-CDL. In: OTM Workshops, pp. 506–515, (2005). doi: 10.1007/11575863_70.
  33. 33.
    Mendling, J., Ziemann, J.: Transformation of BPEL Processes to EPCs. In: Proceedings of the 4th GI Workshop on Event-Driven Process Chains (EPK 2005), vol. 167, pp. 41–53, (2005).
  34. 34.
    Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: Transformation strategies between block-Oriented and graph-oriented process modelling languages. Technical Report JM-200510 −10, WU Vienna (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Naslavsky, L., Ziv, H., Richardson, D.J.: Towards traceability of model-based testing artifacts. In: A-MOST ’07: 3rd International Workshop on Advances in Model-based Testing, pp. 105–114, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). doi: 10.1145/1291535.1291546
  36. 36.
    OASIS: Business process execution language (WSBPEL) 2.0. (2007)
  37. 37.
    Oldevik, J., Neple, T.: Traceability in model to text transformations. In: 2nd ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW), pp. 17–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    OMG (2003) Model-driven architecture (MDA) Guide V1.0.1. Accessed 2 September 2007
  39. 39.
    OMG: second revised submission to the MOF Model to text transformation RFP. 2005, Object Management Group. (2005a)
  40. 40.
    OMG: unified modelling language (UML) 2.0. (2005b)
  41. 41.
    OMG: object constraint language(OCL) 2.0. (2006)
  42. 42.
    OMG: business process modeling notation (BPMN) 1.1. (2008)
  43. 43.
    openArchitectureWareorg (2002) openArchitectureWare—a modular MDA/MDD generator framework. Accessed 23 October 2007
  44. 44.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede A.H.M., van der Aalst W.M.P.: From BPMN process models to BPEL web services. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 285–292 (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pohl, K.: PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. In: ICRE, pp. 76–85 (1996)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ramesh B., Dhar V.: Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE. Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6), 498–510 (1992). doi: 10.1109/32.142872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramesh B., Jarke M.: Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE. Trans. Softw. Eng 27(1), 58–93 (2001). doi: 10.1109/32.895989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Eleventh International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’06), pp. 521–532 (2006)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Software traceability: a roadmap, vol. 3, Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: Recent Advances edn, World Scientific Publishing, pp. 395–428. (2005)
  50. 50.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A., Pérez-Miñana, E., Krause, P.: Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations. J. Syst. Softw. 72(2), 105–127 (2004). doi: 10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00242-5. Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stahl T., Völter M.: Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management. Wiley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: View-based and Model-driven approach for reducing the development complexity in process-driven SOA. In: Intlernational Conference on Business Process and Services Computing (BPSC), GI, LNI, vol. 116, pp. 105–124 (2007)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S (2008) View-Based reverse engineering approach for enhancing model interoperability and reusability in process-driven SOAs. In: Mei H (ed.), 10th International Conference on Software Reuse, ICSR 2008, Springer, LNCS, vol. 5030, pp. 233–244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68073-4_23
  54. 54.
    Tran, H., Holmes, T., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S. (2009) Modeling process-driven SOAs—a view-based approach, handbook of research on business process modeling edn, Information Science Reference, chap 2.
  55. 55.
    W3C (1999) XML Path Language (XPath) 1.0. Accessed 8 July 2008
  56. 56.
    W3C (2001) Web Services Description Language 1.1Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Walderhaug, S., Stav, E., Johansen, U., Olsen, G.K.: Traceability model-driven software development, information science reference, pp. 133–160. Designing software-intensive systems—methods and principles (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ziemann, J., Mendling, J.: EPC-Based modelling of BPEL Processes: a pragmatic transformation approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference “modern information technology in the innovation processes of the industrial enterprises” (MITIP 2005), (2005).
  59. 59.
    Zisman, A., Kozlenkov, A.: Managing inconsistencies in UML specifications. In: Proceedings of the ACIS Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD’03), October 16–18, 2003, Lübeck, Germany, ACIS, pp. 128–138 (2003)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zisman, A., Spanoudakis, G., Pérez-Miñana, E., Krause, P.: Tracing software requirements artifacts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice, SERP ’03, June 23–26, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, CSREA Press, pp. 448–455 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems, Distributed Systems GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations