Advertisement

Transforming SPEM 2.0-Compatible Process Models into Models Checkable for Compliance

  • Julieth Patricia Castellanos ArdilaEmail author
  • Barbara Gallina
  • Faiz Ul Muram
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 918)

Abstract

Manual compliance with process-based standards is time-consuming and prone-to-error. No ready-to-use solution is currently available for increasing efficiency and confidence. In our previous work, we have presented our automated compliance checking vision to support the process engineer’s work. This vision includes the creation of a process model, given by using a SPEM 2.0 (Systems & Software Process Engineering Metamodel)-reference implementation, to be checked by Regorous, a compliance checker used in the business context. In this paper, we move a step further for the concretization of our vision by defining the transformation, necessary to automatically generate the models required by Regorous. Then, we apply our transformation to a small portion of the design phase recommended in the rail sector. Finally, we discuss our findings, and present conclusions and future work.

Keywords

Software process Compliance checking Regorous SPEM 2.0 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the EU and VINNOVA via the ECSEL JU project AMASS (No. 692474) [19]. We thank Guido Governatori for his guidance during the execution of this project.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F., Castellanos Ardila, J.: Compliance of agilized (Software) development processes with safety standards: a vision. In: 4th International Workshop on Agile Development of Safety-Critical Software (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B.: Towards increased efficiency and confidence in process compliance. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 162–174. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIsaac, B.: IBM Rational Method Composer: Standards Mapping. Technical report, IBM Developer Works (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14, 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F.: Enabling compliance checking against safety standards from SPEM 2.0 process models. In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group Inc.: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification. Version 2.0. OMG Std., Rev, 236 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Eclipse Foundation.: Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Composer 1.0 Architecture Overview (2013). http://www.eclipse.org/epf/composer_architecture/
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G.: The Regorous approach to process compliance. In: IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, pp. 33–40 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koliadis, G., Ghose, A.: Verifying semantic business process models in verifying semantic business process models in inter-operation. In: IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, pp. 731–738 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IBM Corporation: Key Capabilities of the Unified Method Architecture (UMA)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group: UML 2. 0 Diagram Interchange Specification (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    La Rosa, M., et al.: APROMORE: an advanced process model repository. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 7029–7040 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EN50128 BS: Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systems (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W., Papazoglou, M.: Formalizing and applying compliance patterns for business process compliance. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 119–146 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El Kharbili, M.: Business process regulatory compliance management solution frameworks: a comparative evaluation. In: 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, pp. 23–32 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kabaale, E., Wen, L., Wang, Z., Rout, T.: Representing software process in description logics: an ontology approach for software process reasoning and verification. In: Clarke, P.M., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2016. CCIS, vol. 609, pp. 362–376. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ul Muram, F., Gallina, B., Gomez Rodriguez, L.: Preventing omission of key evidence fallacy in process-based argumentations. In: 11th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    AMASS: Architecture-driven, Multi-concern and Seamless Assurance and Certification of Cyber-Physical Systems. http://www.amass-ecsel.eu/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julieth Patricia Castellanos Ardila
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barbara Gallina
    • 1
  • Faiz Ul Muram
    • 1
  1. 1.IDT, Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations