Advertisement

Refactoring Software Development Process Terminology Through the Use of Ontology

  • Paul M. Clarke
  • Antoni Lluís Mesquida Calafat
  • Damjan Ekert
  • J. J. Ekstrom
  • Tatjana Gornostaja
  • Milos Jovanovic
  • Jørn Johansen
  • Antonia Mas
  • Richard Messnarz
  • Blanca Nájera Villar
  • Alexander O’Connor
  • Rory V. O’Connor
  • Michael Reiner
  • Gabriele Sauberer
  • Klaus-Dirk Schmitz
  • Murat Yilmaz
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 633)

Abstract

In work that is ongoing, the authors are examining the extent of software development process terminology drift. Initial findings suggest there is a degree of term confusion, with the mapping of concepts to terms lacking precision in some instances. Ontologies are concerned with identifying the concepts of relevance to a field of endeavour and mapping those concepts to terms such that term confusion is reduced. In this paper, we discuss how ontologies are developed. We also identify various sources of software process terminology. Our work to date indicates that the systematic development of a software development process ontology would be of benefit to the entire software development community. The development of such an ontology would in effect represent a systematic refactoring of the terminology and concepts produced over four decades of software process innovation.

Keywords

Software engineering Software development process Software development roles Specialised communication Terminology Ontology 

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V., Leavy, B.: A complexity theory viewpoint on the software development process and situational context. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Software and System Process (ICSSP 2016). IEEE, San Francisco (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V., Clarke, P.: A systematic approach to the comparison of roles in the software development processes. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R., Clarke, P.: Software development roles: a multi-project empirical investigation. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 40(1), 1–5 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, P., et al.: An investigation of software development process terminology. In: Clarke, P.M., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2016. CCIS, vol. 609, pp. 351–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO: ISO 1087-1:2000 terminology work – vocabulary – part 1: Theory and application, 1st edn. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO: ISO 704:2009 terminology work — principles and methods, 1st edn. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO: ISO 26162:2012 systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content — design, implementation and maintenance of terminology management systems, 1st edn. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO: Online Browsing Platform. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#home
  9. 9.
    ISTQB, Standard Glossary of Software Testing Terms. http://www.istqb.org/downloads/glossary.html
  10. 10.
    Budin, G.: Methodology for dynamic ontology creation from terminologies to ontologies – tools of knowledge organization. In: Proceedings of International Terminology Summer School 2009, TermNet, Cologne, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO: ISO 13584-32:2010 - industrial automation systems and integration - OntoML: Product ontology markup language, 1st edn. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aardi, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Pereira Filho, J.G.: Using objects and patterns to implement domain ontologies. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 8(1), 43–56 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., McBride, T., Low, G., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Ontologies for international standards for software engineering. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 479–486. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ECQA: European Certification and Qualification Organisation. www.ecqa.org
  15. 15.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    IEEE: Guide to the software engineering book of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IEEE/ISO/IEC, SE Vocab - Software and Systems Engineering Vocabularly. https://pascal.computer.org/sev_display/index.action
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 24744:2007 software engineering–metamodel for development methodologies, 1st edn. ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 2382-20:1990 information technology–vocabulary–part 20: System development, 1st edn. ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC TR 14471:2007 information technology–software engineering–guidelines for the adoption of CASE tools, 1st edn. ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IEEE: IEEE 1074-2006 IEEE standard for developing a software project life cycle process, 1st edn. IEEE, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riley, O., Richards, J., Ekstrom, J., Tew, K.: Termediator II: measuring term polysemy using semantic clustering. In: Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Research in Information Technology (RIIT 2014), pp. 81–86. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.: Investigating software process in practice: a grounded theory perspective. J. Syst. Softw. 81(5), 772–784 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R., Leavy, B., Yilmaz, M.: Exploring the relationship between software process adaptive capability and organisational performance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(12), 1169–1183 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Connor, R.V., Clarke, P.: Software process reflexivity and business performance: initial results from an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 142–146. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: an empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 85(10), 2356–2367 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: An empirical examination of the extent of software process improvement in software SMEs. J. Softw. Evol. Process 25(9), 981–998 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V., Yilmaz, M.: A hierarchy of SPI activities for software SMEs: results from ISO/IEC 12207-based SPI assessments. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 62–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(5), 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: Changing Situational Contexts Present a Constant Challenge to Software Developers. In: O’Connor, R.V., Umay Akkaya, M., Kemaneci, K., Yilmaz, M., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2015. CCIS, vol. 543, pp. 100–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24647-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research (BMIR) at the Stanford University School of Medicine, Protégé. http://protege.stanford.edu/about.php
  32. 32.
    Oberle, D.: How ontologies benefit enterprise applications. Semant. Web 5(6), 473–491 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greciano, G., Budin, G.: Designing linguistic support for risk management communication. https://www.uibk.ac.at/translation/aktuelles/aktuelles/unterlagen/papergrecianobudineumedinhbsept2006.pdf
  34. 34.
    Hoehndorf, R., Schofield, P.N., Gkoutos, G.V.: The role of ontologies in biological and biomedical research: a functional perspective. Briefings Bioinform. 16(6), 1069–1080 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kharlamov, E., et al.: Ontology based access to exploration data at Statoil. In: Arenas, M. (ed.) ISWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9367, pp. 93–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rychtyckyj, N., Klampfl, E., Gusikhin, O., Rossi, G.: Application of intelligent methods to automotive assembly planning. In: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 2479–2483. IEEE, New Jersey (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molokken-Ostvold, K., Jorgensen, M.: A comparison of software project overruns - flexible versus sequential development models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(9), 754–766 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Larman, C., Basili, V.R.: Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. IEEE Comput. 36(6), 47–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Royce, W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Western Electric Show and Convention Technical Papers. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1970)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mens, T., Tourwe, T.: A survey of software refactoring. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(2), 126–139 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Clarke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antoni Lluís Mesquida Calafat
    • 4
  • Damjan Ekert
    • 5
  • J. J. Ekstrom
    • 6
  • Tatjana Gornostaja
    • 7
  • Milos Jovanovic
    • 4
  • Jørn Johansen
    • 8
  • Antonia Mas
    • 4
  • Richard Messnarz
    • 5
  • Blanca Nájera Villar
    • 9
  • Alexander O’Connor
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Reiner
    • 10
  • Gabriele Sauberer
    • 9
  • Klaus-Dirk Schmitz
    • 11
  • Murat Yilmaz
    • 12
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Lero, The Irish Software Research CentreLimerickIreland
  3. 3.ADAPT, the Global Centre of Excellence for Digital Content TechnologyDublinIreland
  4. 4.Universitat de les Illes BalearsPalmaSpain
  5. 5.ISCN, The International Software Consulting NetworkGrazAustria
  6. 6.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  7. 7.Tilde CompanyRigaLatvia
  8. 8.Whitebox ApsHørsholmDenmark
  9. 9.TermNet, The International Network for TerminologyViennaAustria
  10. 10.European Certification and Qualification Association (ECQA)KremsAustria
  11. 11.Technical University of CologneCologneGermany
  12. 12.Çankaya UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations