UML4SPM: A UML2.0-Based Metamodel for Software Process Modelling

  • Reda Bendraou
  • Marie-Pierre Gervais
  • Xavier Blanc
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


In the context of Model Driven Development, models play a central role. Since models can nowadays be executed, they are used not only for description but also for production [32][30][24]. In the field of software process modelling, the current version of the OMG SPEM standard (ver1.1) has not yet reached the level required for the specification of executable models. The purpose of SPEM1.1 was limited at providing process descriptions to be read by humans and to be supported by tools, but not to be executed. Therefore, the OMG issued a new RFP in order to improve SPEM1.1 [35]. Since we intend to participate in the next major revision of SPEM, namely SPEM2.0, in this work, we: 1) compare SPEM1.1 both with primary process model elements (i.e. Activity, Product, Role,...) and with basic requirements that any Process Modelling Language should support (i.e. expressiveness, understandability, executability,...); 2) identify its major limitations and advantages and 3) propose a new UML2.0-based metamodel for software process modelling named: UML4SPM. It extends a subset of UML2.0 concepts – with no impact on the standard – in order to fit software process modelling.


MDD Software Process Modelling Process Modelling Languages SP Metamodel 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ambriola, V., Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Experiences and Issues in Building and Using Process centered Software Engineering Environments., Internal draft paper, Politecnico di Milano (September 1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANSI/IEEE Std 1012-1986, IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation Plans, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., February 10 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanc, X., Gervais, M.P., Sriplakich, P.: Model Bus: Towards the Interoperability of Modelling Tools. In: Proc. of the Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications (MDAFA 2004), June 2004, Linköping University, Sweden (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conradi, R., Fernström, C., Fuggetta, A., Snowdon, R.: Towards a Reference Framework for Process Concepts. In: Derniame, J.-C. (ed.) EWSPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 635, Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R., Liu, C.: Process Modelling Languages: One or Many? In: Schäfer, W. (ed.) EWSPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 913, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process Modelling. Communications of the ACM 35(9) (September 1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Derniame, J.C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D.: Process Modelling Languages. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500, p. 27. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Nitto, E., et al.: Deriving executable process descriptions from UML. In: Proc. of the 24th Inter. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 2002), Orlando, Florida, ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans, A.S., Kent, S.: Meta-modelling semantics of UML: the pUML approach. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feiler, P.H., Humphrey Watts, S.: Software process development and enactment. In: Proc. of 2nd Inter. Conf. on the Software Process, Berlin, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FIPS PUB 132, Guideline for Software Verification and Validation Plans, U.S. Department of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards (U.S.), November 19 (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franch, X., Ribó, J.M.: Using UML for Modelling the Static Part of a Software Process. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 292–307. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hausmann, J.H., Störrle, H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. In: Proc. of the German Software Engineering Conference, SE 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humphrey Watts, S.: Process Models in Software Engineering. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. December 2001, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Humphrey Watts, S.: The Software Engineering Process: Definition and Scope. In: Proc. of the 4th International Software Process Workshop on Representing and Enacting the Software Process, Devon, United Kingdom (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaccheri, M.L., Baldi, M., Divitini, M.: Evaluating the Requirements for Software Process Modelling Languages and Systems. In: Proc. of Process support for Distributed Team-based Software Development (PDTSD 1999), Orlando, Florida, USA (August 1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jager, D., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Using UML for Software Process Modelling. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, p. 91. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jäger, D., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Object-Oriented Software Process Modeling. In: The Proc. of the 7th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), Toulouse (September 1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    JMI1.0, Java Metadata Interface Specification, Java Community process document JSR040 (June 2002), at
  20. 20.
    Kent, S.: Model Driven Engineering. In: Butler, M., Petre, L., Sere, K. (eds.) IFM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2335, p. 286. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lonchamp, J.: A structured conceptual and terminological framework for software process engineering. In: Proc. of the 2nd Inter.l Conf. on Software Process, Berlin, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McLeod, G.: Extending UML for Entreprise and Business Process Modeling. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MDA. Model Driven Architecture (MDA), OMG TC document ormsc/2001-07-01 (July 2001), at
  24. 24.
    Mellor, S.J., Balcer, M.J., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model-Driven Architecture. Pearson Education (July 2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MODELWARE Project, at
  26. 26.
    MOF 1.4. Meta-Object Facility, OMG document formal/2002-04-03 (April 2002), at
  27. 27.
    Montangero, C., Derniame, J.C., Kaba, B.A., Warboys, B.: The software process: Modelling and technology. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osterweil, L.: Software Processes Are Software Too. In: Proc. of the 9th Inter. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’9), ACM Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perry, D.E. (ed.): Proc. of the 5th Inter. Software Process Workshop (ISPW’5), Kennebunkport, Maine, USA, October 1989. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1989)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raistrick, C., Francis, P., Wright, J.: Model Driven Architecture With Executable UML. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (March 2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ribó, J.M., Franch, X.: A Precedence-based Approach for Proactive Control in Software Process Modelling. In: Proc. of the Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002), Ischia (Italy), September 2002, ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riehle, D., et al.: The Architecture of a UML Virtual Machine. In: Proc. of the 2001 Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2001), ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models RFP, OMG document ad/05-04-02 (April 2005), at: (page last visit June 17, 2005)
  34. 34.
    SPEM1.1, Software Process Engineering Metamodel, OMG document formal/02-11/14 (November 2002), at
  35. 35.
    SPEM2.0 RFP, Software Process Engineering Metamodel, OMG document ad/2004-11-04 (November 2004), at (page last visit April 4, 2005)
  36. 36.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics of UML2.0 Activities with Data-Flow. In: Proc. of the Visual Languages and Formal Methods Workshop (VLFM 2004), Rome, Italy (September 2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    UML2.0 Superstructure, Unified Modelling Language, adopted specification, OMG document ptc/04-10-02 (October 2004), at
  38. 38.
    UML1.4, Unified Modelling Language, OMG document formal/01-09-67 (September 2001), at
  39. 39.
    Zameli, K.Z., Lee, P.A.: Taxonomy of Process Modelling Languages. In: Proc. of the ACS/IEEE Inter. Conf. on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA 2001), Beirut, Lebanon (June 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reda Bendraou
    • 1
  • Marie-Pierre Gervais
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xavier Blanc
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6 (LIP6)PARIS
  2. 2.University Paris X 

Personalised recommendations