Toward a comparable characterization for software development activities in context of MDE
Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process
A plea for lean software process models
Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process
A FUML-based distributed execution machine for enacting software process models
ECMFA'11 Proceedings of the 7th European conference on Modelling foundations and applications
eSPEM – a SPEM extension for enactable behavior modeling
ECMFA'10 Proceedings of the 6th European conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications
Systematic software process development: where do we stand today?
Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process
Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Embedded Software
Software process modeling languages: A systematic literature review
Information and Software Technology
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Describing and managing activities, resources, and constraints of software development processes is a challenging goal for many organizations. A first generation of Software Process Modeling Languages (SPMLs) appeared in the 1990s but failed to gain broad industrial support. Recently, however, a second generation of SPMLs has appeared, leveraging the strong industrial interest for modeling languages such as UML. In this paper, we propose a comparison of these UML-based SPMLs. While not exhaustive, this comparison concentrates on SPMLs most representative of the various alternative approaches, ranging from UML-based framework specializations to full-blown executable metamodeling approaches. To support the comparison of these various approaches, we propose a frame gathering a set of requirements for process modeling, such as semantic richness, modularity, executability, conformity to the UML standard, and formality. Beyond discussing the relative merits of these approaches, we also evaluate the overall suitability of these UML-based SPMLs for software process modeling. Finally, we discuss the impact of these approaches on the current state of the practice, and conclude with lessons we have learned in doing this comparison.