Using UML for Modelling the Static Part of a Software Process

  • Xavier Franch
  • Josep M. Ribó
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1723)

Abstract

We study in this paper the use of UML as a tool for modelling the process of software construction. As a case study, we deal with the process of building a library of software components. UML is used in order to define the static part of the process, i.e., the elements that take part on it and their structural relationships. We think that our approach supports some interesting properties in the field of software process modelling (e.g.: modularity; expressivity in model construction; sound formal basis; and flexibility in model enactment). Besides showing the adequacy of UML for modelling the static part, the paper outlines also some drawbacks concerning the description of the dynamic behaviour of the process using only UML, and some possible solutions to them.

Keywords

Static Part Activity Diagram Dynamic Part Association Relationship Proactive Control 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allweyer, T; Loos, P: Process Orientation in UML through Integration of Event-Driven Process Chains. Proceedings of UML 98’ Workshop, Ecole Superioeure des Sciences Appliquées pour l’Ingénieur-Mulhouse Université de Haute-Alsace (1998), 183–193Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandinelli, S.; Fuggeta, A.; Ghezzi, C.; Lavazza, L.: SPADE: An Environemnt for Software Process Analysis, Design and Enactment. In Kramer, J.; Nuseibeh, B. (eds.): Software Process Modelling and Technology. Advanced Software Development Series, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York [6] (1994), 223–247Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conradi, R.; Larsen, J.; Minh, N.N.; Munch, B.P.; Westby, P.H.: Integrated Product and Process Management in EPOS. Journal of Integrated CAE, special issue on Integrated Product and Process Modeling (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dami, S.; Estublier, J.; Amiour, M.: APEL: a Graphical Yet Executable Formalism for Process Modeling. E. di Nitto and A. Fuggetta (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derniame, J.-C.; Kaba, B.A.; Wastell, D. (eds.): Software Process: Principles, Methodology and Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Vol. 1500. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finkelstein, A.; Kramer, J.; Nuseibeh, B. (eds.): Software Process Modelling and Technology. Advanced Software Development Series, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York Chichester Toronto Brisbane Singapore (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franch, X.: Systematic Formulation of Non-Funcional Requirements of Software. Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE), Colorado Springs (USA), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998), 174–181.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franch, X.; Botella, P.; Burgués, X.; Ribó, J.M.: ComProLab: A Component Programming Laboratory. Proceedings 9th Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering Conference (SEKE), Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie (1997), 397–406Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franch, X.; Ribó, J.M.: A Structured Approach to Software Process Modelling. Proceedings 24th EUROMICRO Conference, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos Washington Brussels Tokyo (1998), 753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franch, X.; Ribó, J.M.: PROMENADE: A Modular Approach to Software Process Modelling and Enaction. Research Report LSI-99-13-R, Dept. LSI, UPC (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaccheri, M.L.; Picco, G.P.; Lago, P.: Eliciting Software Process Models with the E3 Language. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jäger D., Schleicher A., Westfechtel B.: Object-Oriented Software Process Modeling. To appear in the proceedings of the 7th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), Toulouse, September 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joeris G., Herzog O.: Towards a Flexible and High-Level Modeling and Enacting of Processes. Proceedings of the 11th. Conference on Advanced Information System Engineering (CAISE), LNCS 1626, pp. 88–102, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landes, D.; Studer, R.: The Treatment of Non-Funcional Requirements in MIKE. Proceedings 5th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), Barcelona (Catalunya, Spain). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 989. Springer-Verlag (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLeod, G: Extending UML for Entreprise and Business Process Modeling. Proceedings UML 98’ Workshop, Ecole Superioeure des Sciences Appliquées pour l’Ingénieur-Mulhouse Université de Haute-Alsace (1998), 195–204Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mylopoulos, J.; Chung, L.; Nixon, B.A.: Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 18, N. 6 (1992), 483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rational Software Corporation: UML extension for Objectory Process for Software Engineering. http://www.rational.com/uml
  18. 18.
    Rational Software Corporation et al.: UML Semantics. http://www.rational.com/uml
  19. 19.
    Reimar, W.; Schaefer, W.: Towards a Dedicated Object-Oriented Software Process Modelling Language. Workshop on Modeling Software Process and Artifacts, held at 11th ECOOP, Jyvaskyta (Finland) (1997).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G.: The UML Reference Manual. Addison Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutton S.M.; Heimbigner D.; Osterweil L.J.: APPL/A: A Language for Software Process Programming. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. Vol 4. N. 3, July 1995. 221–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutton, S.M.; Osterweil, L.J.: The Design of a Next-Generation Process Language. Proceedings of ESEC/FSE’ 97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1301, M. Jazayeri and H. Schaure (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1997), 142–158Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warboys, B.C.; Balasubramaniam, D. et al: Instances and Connectors: Issues for a Second Generation Process Language. Proceedings of the 6th European Workshop in Software Process Technology, LNCS 1487, V. Gruhn (ed.). Springer-Verlag (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Franch
    • 1
  • Josep M. Ribó
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universitat de LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations