Advertisement

Process Model Difference Analysis for Supporting Process Evolution

  • Martín Soto
  • Jürgen Münch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4257)

Abstract

Software development processes are subject to variations in time and space, variations that can originate from learning effects, differences in application domains, or a number of other causes. Identifying and analyzing such differences is crucial for a variety of process activities, like defining and evolving process standards, or analyzing the compliance of process models to existing standards, among others. In this paper, we show why appropriately identifying, describing, and visualizing differences between process models in order to support such activities is a highly challenging task. We present scenarios that motivate the need for process model difference analysis, and describe the conceptual and technical challenges arising from them. In addition, we sketch an initial tool-based approach implementing difference analysis, and contrast it with similar existing approaches. The results from this paper constitute the requirements for our ongoing development effort, whose objectives we also describe briefly.

Keywords

Reference Model Resource Description Framework Difference Analysis International Electrotechnical Commission Process Definition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rombach, D.: Integrated Software Process and Product Lines: Unifying the Software Process Spectrum. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Space Agency, Board for Software Standardisation and Control (BSSC): Tailoring of ECSS Software Engineering Standards for Ground Segments in ESA. BSSC document 2005(1) Issue 1.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) (last checked 2006-03-31), standards available at: http://www.ecss.nl
  4. 4.
    V-Modell XT (last checked 2006-03-31), Available from: http://www.v-modell.iabg.de/
  5. 5.
    Ocampo, A., Boggio, D., Münch, J., Palladino, G.: Towards a Reference Process for Wireless Internet Services. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(12), 1122–1134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zettel, J., Maurer, F., Münch, J., Wong, L.: LIPE: A Lightweight Process for E-Business Startup Companies Based on Extreme Programming. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2001. LNCS, vol. 2188, pp. 255–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Experience Factory. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 511–519. A-O. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (last checked 2006-03-31), http://www.iec.ch/zone/fsafety/
  9. 9.
    Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, CRC Press LLC: Longest Common Subsequence. From Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures, Paul E. Black, ed., NIST (1999) 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(5) (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Völkel, M., Enguix, C.F., Ryszard-Kruk, S., Zhdanova, A.V., Stevens, R., Sure, Y.: SemVersion - Versioning RDF and Ontologies. Technical Report, University of Karlsruhe (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D.: Tracking Changes in RDF(S) Repositories. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, KTSW 2002, Lyon, France (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobler, J., Schöning, U., Toran, J.: The Graph Isomorphism Problem: Its Structural Complexity. Birkhäuser (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ocampo, A., Münch, J.: Process Evolution Supported by Rationale: An Empirical Investigation of Process Changes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Software Process Workshop and 7th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, SPW/ProSim 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manola, F., Miller, E. (eds.): RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (2004) (last checked 2006-03-31), available from: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations