Advertisement

An Ontology for Software Development Methodologies and Endeavours

  • César González-Pérez
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers

Keywords

Software Development Work Product Software Developer Class Diagram Method Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., 1998. Supporting and Applying the UML Conceptual Framework. In UML 1998: Beyond the Notation. LNCS 1618. Springer-Verlag: Berlin (Germany). 21–36.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C. and T. Kühne, 2000. Meta-Level Independent Modelling. In International Workshop on Model Engineering at 14th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Sophia Antipolis and Cannes, France, 12–16 June 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbier, F., B. Henderson-Sellers, A. Le Parc-Lacayrelle, and J.-M. Bruel, 2003. Formalization of the Whole-Part Relationship in the Unified Modeling Language. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 29(5): 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, K., 2000. Extreme Programming Explained. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Souza, F.D. and A.C. Wills, 1999. Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Object Technology Series, ed. G. Booch, I. Jacobson, and J. Rumbaugh. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Firesmith, D.G. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2002. The OPEN Process Framework. The OPEN Series. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., 2002. Sistemas de Información para Arqueología: Teoría, Metodología y Tecnologías. BAR International Series. Vol. 1015. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2005. A Powertype-Based Metamodelling Framework. Software and Systems Modelling. 5(1), pp.72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2005. Templates and Resources in Software Development Methodologies. Journal of Object Technology. 4(4): 173–190.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., T. McBride, and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2005. A Metamodel for Assessable Software Development Methodologies. Software Quality Journal. 13(2): 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henderson-Sellers, B. and C. Gonzalez-Perez, 2005. Connecting Powertypes and Stereotypes. Journal of Object Technology. 4(7), pp. 83–96.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson-Sellers, B. and C. Gonzalez-Perez, 2005. The Rationale of Powertype-Based Metamodelling. In Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling. Newcastle, NSW (Australia), 30 January–4 February 2005. Australian Computer Science Communications Vol. 7, No. 6. Australian Computer Society. 7–16.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hohmann, L., 1997. Journey of the Software Professional. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/ IEC, 2002. Software Life Cycle Processes, Amendment 2. ISO/IEC 12207: 1995 / Amd 2: 2004. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/ IEC, 2002. System Life Cycle Processes. ISO/IEC 15288: 2002. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/ IEC, 2004. Software Process Assessment — Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary. ISO/IEC 15504-1: 2004. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jayaratna, N., 1994. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framework. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liskov, B. and J.M. Wing, 1994. A Behavioral Notion of Subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. 16(6): 1811–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, J. and J.J. Odell, 1995. Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Odell, J.J., 1994. Power Types. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. 7(2): 8–12.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG, 2003. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Infrastructure, version 2. ptc/03-09-15. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OMG, 2004. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Superstructure, version 2. ptc/04-10-02. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG, 2005. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, version 1.1. formal/05-01-06. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford English Dictionary (web site). Accessed on 23 August 2005. http://dictionary.oed.com/Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ralyté, J., 2002. Requirements Definition for the Situational Method Engineering. In Engineering Information Systems in the Internet Context. Kanazawa (Japan), 25–27 September 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 127–152.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    SA, 2004. Standard Metamodel for Software Development Methodologies. AS 4651-2004. Standards Australia.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    SEI, 2002. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Continuous Representation, version 1.1. CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Continuous. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • César González-Pérez
    • 1
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations