Toward a Methodological Knowledge for Service-Oriented Development Based on OPEN Meta-Model

  • Mahdi Fahmideh
  • Fereidoon Shams
  • Pooyan Jamshidi
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 181)

Abstract

Situational method engineering uses a repository of reusable method fragments that are derived from existing software development methodologies and industrial best practices to simplify the construction of any project-specific software development methodology aligned with specific characteristics of a project at hand. In this respect, OPEN is a well-established, standardized and popular approach for situational method engineering. It has a large repository of reusable method fragments called OPF that method engineers can select and assemble them according to the requirements of a project to construct a new project-specific software development methodology. In this position paper, we present the basic concepts and foundations of OPEN and argue for an urgent need for new extensions to OPEN and its repository in support of service-oriented software development practices.

Keywords

OPEN Process Framework OPF Repository OPEN Meta-Model Situational Method Engineering Method Fragments Service-Oriented Software Development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cockburn, A.: Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Software 17(4), 64–71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, J.A. (eds.) Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, pp. 257–269. J. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slooten, K., Brinkkemper, S.: A method engineering approach to information systems development. In: Prakash, N., Rolland, C., Pernici, B. (eds.) Information Systems Development Process Procs. IFIP WG8.1, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, North-Holland (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ralyte, J.: Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks. In: Ralyte, J. (ed.) Procs. 13 th Int. Conf. on Information Systems Development. Advances in Theory, Practice and Education (Vilnius, Lithuania), pp. 271–282 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modeling. Requirements Engineering Journal 4(4), 69–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Slooten, K., Hodes, B.: Characterizing IS development projects,In: IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Method Engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support, London (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ralyté, J.: Comparison of Method Chunks and Method Fragments for Situational Method Engineering. In: Proceedings 19th Australian Software Engineering Conference. ASWEC2008, pp. 479–488. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 267–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering. Moret Ernst & Young, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An Approach for Method Reengineering. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mirbel, I.: Connecting Method Engineering Knowledge: a Community Based Approach- IFIP WG8.1. In: Working Conference on Method Engineering, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Firesmith, D.G., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Herts, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S.: Service-Oriented Computing Research Roadmap (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Heuvel, W.J.: Service-Oriented Design and Development Methodology. International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology (IJWET) 2(4), 412–442 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lane, S., Richardson, I.: Process Models for Service Based Applications: A Systematic Literature Review, Information and Software Technology, In Press (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J.: Service-Oriented Information Systems Engineering: A Situation-Driven Approach for Service Integration. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 140–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J.: MISS: A Meta-model of Information System Service. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information System Development (ISD), Paphos, Cyprus, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J., Léonard, M.: Service-Driven Information Systems Evolution: Handling Integrity Constraints Consistency. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) The practice of Enterprise Modeling. Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, vol. 39(2009), pp. 191–206 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J.: Situational Method Engineering: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Method engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, Senn (eds.) Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda, pp. 257–268. Wiley, Chichester, UK (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saeki, M., Iguchi, K., Wen-yin, K., Shinohara, M.: A Meta-model for Representing Software Specification & Design Methods. In: Proceedings of IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems Development Process, pp. 149–166 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: A Proposal for Context-Specific Method Engineering. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K., Welke, R.J. (eds.) Method Engineering. Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering, Atlanta, USA, pp. 191–208. Chapman and Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering. In: Pernici, B., Thanos, C. (eds.) CAiSE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1413, pp. 381–384. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Low, G., Mouratidis, H., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Using a Situational Method Engineering Approach to Identify Reusable Method Fragments from the Secure TROPOS Methodology. Journal of Object Technology 9(4), 91–125 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Serour, M., Mcbride, T., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Dagher, L.: Process construction and customization. Journal Universal Computer Science 10(4), 326–358 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serour, M.K., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The role of organizational culture on the adoption and diffusion of software engineering process: an empirical study. In: Bunker, D., Wilson, D., Elliot, S. (eds.) The Adoption and Diffusion of IT in an Environment of Critical Change. IFIP/Pearson, pp. 76–88. Pearson, Frenchs Forest, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Graham, I., Henderson-Sellers, B., Younessi, H.: The Open Process Specification. Addison-Wesley (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO/IEC 24744. Software Engineering – Meta-model for Software Development Methodologies, ISO, Geneva (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Firesmith, D.G., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The Open Process Framework. An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, London, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4, OMG (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., France, R., Georg, G., Reddy, R.: A method engineering approach to developing aspect-oriented modeling processes based on the Open process framework. Information and Software Technology 49(7) (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: An open process for component-based development. In: Heineman, G.T., Councill, W. (eds.) Component- Based Software Engineering: Putting the Pieces Together, pp. 321–340. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haire, B., Henderson-Sellers, B., Lowe, D.: Supporting web development in the OPEN process: Additional tasks. In: Haire, B., Henderson-Sellers, B., Lowe, D. (eds.) Proceedings of 25th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. COMPSAC 2001, pp. 383–389. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Haire, B., Lowe, D.: Using Open’s deontic matrices for e-business. In: Rolland, C., Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) Engineering Information Systems in the Internet Context, pp. 9–30. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Serour, M.: Creating a process for transitioning to object technology. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Serour, M. (eds.) Proceedings Seventh Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. APSEC 2004, pp. 436–440. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Serour, M.K., Henderson-Sellers, B., Hughes, J., Winder, D., Chow, L.: Organizational transition to object technology: Theory and practice. In: Bellahsène, Z., Patel, D., Rolland, C. (eds.) OOIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2425, pp. 229–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Hutchison, J.: Usage-Centered Design (UCD) and the open Process Framework (OPF). In: Constantine, L.L. (ed.) Performance by Design. Proceedings of USE2003, Second International Conference on Usage-Centered Design, pp. 171–196. Ampersand Press, Rowley, MA, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Petritsch, H.: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) vs. Component Based Architecture, http://petritsch.co.at/download/SOA_vs_component_based.pdf
  40. 40.
    Fahmideh Gholami, M., Habibi, J., Shams, F., Khoshnevis, S.: Criteria-Based Evaluation Framework for Service-Oriented Methodologies, UKSim. In: 12 th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation, pp. 122–130 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Engels, G., Assmann, M.: Service-Oriented Enterprise Architectures: Evolution of Concepts and Methods. In: 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. pp. xxxiv-xliii, IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arsanjani, A., Allam, A.: Service-Oriented Modeling and Architecture for Realization of an SOA. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 521–521 (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arsanjani, A., Ghosh, S., Allam, A., Abdollah, T., Ganapathy, S., Holley, K.: SOMA: a method for developing service-oriented solutions. IBM Systems Journal 47, 377–396 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ralyt´e, J., Backlund, P., Kühn, H., Jeusfeld, M.A.: Method Chunks for Interoperability. In: 25 th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. ER 2006, pp. 339–353 (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mirbel, I., de Rivi‘eres, V.: UML and the unified process. IRMA Press (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mirbel, I.: Connecting method engineering knowledge: a community based approach. Situational Method Engineering, pp.176-192 (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ralyte´, J.: Towards situational methods for information systems development: Engineering reusable method chunks. In: Proceedings of ISD 2004, pp. 271–282 (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fahmideh, M., Jamshidi, P., Shams, F.: A Procedure for Extracting Software Development Process Patterns, In: Fourth UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation, pp.75-83, Pisa, Italy, (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    SUN Microsystems,SOA RQ methodology - A pragmatic approach methodology.pdf, http://www.sun.com/products/soa/soa
  50. 50.
  51. 51.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall PTR (2005)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Keith. M.: SOMA, RUP and RMC: the right combination for Service Oriented Architecture, IBM® Web Sphere® User Group, Bedfont (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zimmermann, O.P., Krogdahl, C.: Elements of Service-Oriented Analysis and Design, IBM Corporation, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wssoad1
  54. 54.
    Mittal. K.: Service-Oriented Unified Process (SOUP), http://www.kunalmittal.com/html/soup.shtml
  55. 55.
    Jones, S.: A Methodology for Service Architectures, Capgemini UK plc - open.org/committees/download.php/15071/AmethodologyforServiceA rchitecturesASISContribution.pdf, http://www.oasis
  56. 56.
    Erradi, A.: SOAF: An architectural framework for service definition and realization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 151–158. Chicago, USA (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahdi Fahmideh
    • 1
  • Fereidoon Shams
    • 1
  • Pooyan Jamshidi
    • 2
  1. 1.Automated Software Engineering Research GroupECE Faculty, SB University GCTehranIran
  2. 2.Lero - The Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, School of ComputingDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations