Deriving executable process descriptions from UML

ABSTRACT

In the recent past, a relevant effort has been devoted to the definition of process modeling languages (PMLs). The resulting languages and environments -although technically successful-did not receive much attention from industry. On the contrary, researchers and practitioners have recently started experimenting with the usage of UML as a PML. Being so popular and widely used, UML has an important competitive advantage compared to any specialized PML. However, it has also a main limitation. While most PMLs are executable by some process engine, UML was conceived as a non-executable, semi-formal language. The work described here aims at assessing the possibility of employing a subset of UML as an executable PML. The article proposes a formalization of the semantics of the UML subset and presents the translation of UML process models into code, which can be enacted in the OPSS process-centered environment. The paper also presents a case study to validate the approach. We expect that process modeling by means of UML is easier and available to a larger community of software process managers. Moreover, process enactment makes the process more efficient, reliable, predictable and controllable, as widely shown by previous research.

REFERENCES

• 1: Arlow J., Bandinelli S., Emmerich W., and Lavazza L., Fine Grained Process Modeling: an Experiment at British Airways, Software Process Improvement and Practice, J. Wiley, 3,2, 1997.
• 2: Sergio Bandinelli , Elisabetta Di Nitto , Alfonso Fuggetta, Supporting Cooperation in the SPADE-1 Environment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.22 n.12, p.841-865, December 1996 [doi>10.1109/32.553634]
• 3: S. C. Bandinelli , A. Fuggetta , C. Ghezzi, Software Process Model Evolution in the SPADE Environment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.19 n.12, p.1128-1144, December 1993 [doi>10.1109/32.249659]
• 4: Sergio Bandinelli , Alfonso Fuggetta , Luigi Lavazza , Maurizio Loi , Gian Pietro Picco, Modeling and Improving an Industrial Software Process, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.5, p.440-454, May 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.387473]
• 5: Aaron G. Cass , Barbara Staudt Lerner , Stanley M. Sutton, Jr. , Eric K. McCall , Alexander Wise , Leon J. Osterweil, Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, p.754-757, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland [doi>10.1145/337180.337623]
• 6: Gianpaolo Cugola , Elisabetta Di Nitto , Alfonso Fuggetta, The JEDI Event-Based Infrastructure and Its Application to the Development of the OPSS WFMS, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.27 n.9, p.827-850, September 2001 [doi>10.1109/32.950318]
• 7: G. Cugola , E. Di Nitto , A. Fuggetta, Exploiting an event-based infrastructure to develop complex distributed systems, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering, p.261-270, April 19-25, 1998, Kyoto, Japan
• 8: Eriksson H.E., and Penker M., Business Modeling with UML, Wiley Computing Publishing, 2000.
• 9: Volker Gruhn , Juri Urbainczyk, Software process modeling and enactment: an experience report related to problem tracking in an industrial project, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering, p.13-21, April 19-25, 1998, Kyoto, Japan
• 10: John C. Grundy , Mark D. Apperley , John G. Hosking , Warwick B. Mugridge, A Decentralized Architecture for Software Process Modeling and Enactment, IEEE Internet Computing, v.2 n.5, p.53-62, September 1998 [doi>10.1109/4236.722231]
• 11: Ivar Jacobson , Grady Booch , James Rumbaugh, The unified software development process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 12: Dirk Jäger , Ansgar Schleicher , Bernhard Westfechtel, Using UML for software process modeling, Proceedings of the 7th European software engineering conference held jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.91-108, September 06-10, 1999, Toulouse, France
• 13: Chris Marshall, Enterprise modeling with UML: designing successful software through business analysis, Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd., Essex, UK, 2000
• 14: OMG, XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification, Version 1.1, November 2000, ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/formal/00-11-02.pdf.
• 15: OMG, Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3, First edition March 2000, ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/formal/00-03-01.pdf.
• 16: L. Osterweil, Software processes are software too, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, p.2-13, March 1987, Monterey, California, United States
• 17: Schiavoni M. and Trombetta M., Uso di UML come linguaggio di descrizione di workflow. Progettazione e sviluppo di un traduttore verso il sistema di workflow OPSS. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, June 2001. (In Italian).
• 18: WFMC, Workflow Management Coalition Interface 1: process definition interchange process model, Technical Report WFMC-TC-1016-p, ver. 1.1, October 1999.
• 19: DESS project official Web site, http://www.dess-itea.org.
• 20: E. Di Nitto, L. Lavazza, E. Tracanella, DESS approach to process modeling and process support, CEFRIEL Technical Report RT01002, January 2002.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software process models (e.g., CMM, ISO, PSP)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.2 Language Classifications

          Nouns: UML
      D.3.3 Language Constructs and Features
          Subjects: Procedures, functions, and subroutines

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Performance