Abstract
Software processes described by natural languages are frequently ambiguous and it is usually difficult to compare the similarity and difference between one process defined in one standard and its counterpart defined in another standard. This paper proposes Composition Tree (CT) as a graphic language to model software process based on its purpose and expected outcomes. CT is a formal graphic notation originally designed for modeling component based software system. This paper demonstrates that CT can be a powerful notation to give a clear and unambiguous description of a software process as well. This paper also investigates an algorithm which can compare two CT-modeled processes and provide an intuitive view called a Comparison Composition Tree (CCT) to highlight the differences and similarities between the two processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Behavior Engineering Web Site, http://www.behaviorengineering.org/
Box, G.E.P.: Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In: Launer, R.L., Wilkinson, G.N. (eds.) Robustness in Statistics. Academic Press, New York (1979)
Dromey, R.G.: Climbing Over the ’No Silver Bullet’ Brick Wall. IEEE Software 23(2), 118–120 (2006)
Dromey, R.G.: Formalizing the Transition from Requirements to Design. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) Mathematical Frameworks for Component Software, Models for Analysis and Synthesis, ch. 6, pp. 173–206. World Scientific, Singapore (2006), ISBN 981-270-017-X
Dromey, R.G.: System Composition: Constructive Support for the Analysis and Design of Large Systems. In: SETE-2005, Systems Engineering/Test and Evaluation Conference, Brisbane, Australia (2005)
Feiler, P.H., Humphrey, W.S.: Software Process Development and Enactment. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, CMU/SEY-92-TR-04, p. 11 (1992)
ISO/IEC 15288:2002. Information technology - System engineering – System life cycle process (2002)
ISO/IEC 12207:2008 – Information technology – Software engineering – Software life cycle processes (2008)
ISO/IEC TR 24774. Software and systems engineering – Life cycle management – Guidelines for process description (2007)
Podorozhny, R.M., Perry, D.E., Osterweil, L.J.: Artifact-based functional comparison of software processes. In: 4th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, May 2003, pp. V.29.1–V.29.10 (2003)
Scacchi, W.: Process Models in Software Engineering. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (2001)
Sheard, S.A.: The frameworks quagmire, a brief look. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual International INCOSE, Symposium (INCOSE 1997) (1997)
Tuffley, D., Rout, T.: Behavior Engineering as Process Model Verification Tool. In: The proceedings of the 10th International SPICE conference (2010)
Wen, L., Dromey, R.G.: From Requirements Change to Design Change: A Formal Path. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 104–113 (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wen, L., Tuffley, D., Rout, T. (2011). Using Composition Trees to Model and Compare Software Process. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. SPICE 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 155. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21233-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21233-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21232-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21233-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)