Advertisement

The Secret Life of a Process Description: A Look into the Evolution of a Large Process Model

  • Martín Soto
  • Alexis Ocampo
  • Jürgen Münch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5007)

Abstract

Software process models must change continuously in order to remain consistent over time with the reality they represent, as well as relevant to the task they are intended for. Performing these changes in a sound and disciplined fashion requires software process model evolution to be understood and controlled. The current situation can be characterized by a lack of understanding of software process model evolution and, in consequence, by a lack of systematic support for evolving software process models in organizations. This paper presents an analysis of the evolution of a large software process standard, namely, the process standard for the German Federal Government (V-Modell® XT). The analysis was performed with the Evolyzer tool suite, and is based on the complete history of over 600 versions that have been created during the development and maintenance of the standard. The analysis reveals similarities and differences between process evolution and empirical findings in the area of software system evolution. These findings provide hints on how to better manage process model evolution in the future.

Keywords

process modeling process model change process model evolution model comparison V-Modell® XT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Osterweil, L.: Software processes are software too. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V-Modell® XT (last checked 2007-12-20), http://www.v-modell.iabg.de/
  3. 3.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: Focused Identification of Process Model Changes. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manola, F., Miller, E. (eds.): RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (2004) (last checked 2007-12-20), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
  6. 6.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Work-ing Draft (2006) (last checked 2006-10-22), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  7. 7.
    Ocampo, A., Soto, M.: Connecting the Rationale for Changes to the Evolution of a Process. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehmann, M.M.: On Understanding Laws, Evolution, and Conservation in the Large-Program Life Cycle. The Journal of Systems and Software 1(3), 213–231 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Endres, A., Rombach, D.: A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering. Pearson, London (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models. In: German Software Engineering Conference 2005 (SE 2005) (2005) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Long Beach, CA, USA (2005) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: Model Comparison: A Key Challenge for Transformation Testing and Version Control in Model Driven Software Development. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Software Development, Vancouver (2004) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Fujaba Manual (last checked 2007-09-06), http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/fujaba/
  15. 15.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(5) (2002) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berners-Lee, T., Connolly D.: Delta: An Ontology for the Distribution of Differences Between RDF Graphs. MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) (last checked 2006-03-30), Online publication http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Diff
  17. 17.
    Völkel, M., Enguix, C.F., Ryszard-Kruk, S., Zhdanova, A.V., Stevens, R., Sure, Y.: Sem-Version - Versioning RDF and Ontologies. Technical Report, University of Karlsruhe (2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D.: Tracking Changes in RDF(S) Repositories. In: Proceed-ings of the Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, KTSW 2002, Lyon, France (2002) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martín Soto
    • 1
  • Alexis Ocampo
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations