One major advantage of executable models is that once constructed, they can be run, checked, validated and improved in short incremental and iterative cycles. In the field of Software Process Modeling, process models have not yet reached the level of precision that would allow their execution. Recently the OMG issued a new revision of its standard for Software Process Modeling, namely SPEM2.0. However, even if executability was defined as a mandatory requirement in the RFP (Request For Proposal), the adopted specification does not fulfill it. This paper presents a critical analysis on the newly defined standard and addresses its lacks in terms of executability. An approach is proposed in order to extend the standard with a set of concepts and behavioural semantics that would allow SPEM2.0 process models to be checked through a mapping to Petri nets and monitored through a transformation into BPEL.

No abstract

Abstract-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) has appeared in the nineties but failed to gain broad industrial support. Recently however, a second generation of SPMLs appeared, leveraging the strong industrial interest for modeling languages such as the UML. In this article, 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 meta-modeling 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.

No abstract