Using the semantic web to define a language for modelling controlled flexibility in software processes

Using the semantic web to define a language for modelling controlled flexibility in software processes

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

Software processes and corresponding models are dynamic entities that must evolve to cope with changes occurred in the enacting process, the software development organisation, the market and the methodologies used to produce software. However, in the everyday practice, software team members do not want total flexibility. They rather prefer to learn about and follow previously defined controlled flexibility, that is, advices on which, where, how and by whom process models and related instances can change/adapt. Process engineers can express these advices within a process model with a domain-specific language (DSL), which complements the core process modelling language with additional controlled flexibility information. Then, software team members can browse and learn on this information in process models and instances, and be guided when performing changes. In this study, the authors propose the use of the semantic web and associated ontology-based technologies to develop and evolve their controlled flexibility DSL for software processes. They use an ontology-based format to define the controlled flexibility-related concepts, descriptions and axioms that specify the formal semantics of their DSL. In addition, the authors provide concrete mappings between these ontology concepts and a unified modelling language class-based DSL metamodel and describe how it supports changes made in the ontology.


    1. 1)
      • Process modeling
    2. 2)
      • Flexibility in process-aware information systems
    3. 3)
      • Cass, A.G., Osterweil, L.J.: `Process support to help novices design software faster and better', Proc. 20th IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'05), November 2005, Long Beach, CA, USA, p. 295–299
    4. 4)
      • Bider, I.: `Masking flexibility behind rigidity: notes on how much flexibility people are willing to cope with', Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'05), June 2005, Porto, Portugal, p. 7–18
    5. 5)
      • Borch, S.E., Stefansen, C.: `On controlled flexibility', Proc. Seventh Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support (BPMDS'06) co-located with the 18th Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'06), June 2006, Luxembourg, p. 121–126
    6. 6)
      • Process modelling languages, Software process: principles, methodology and technology
    7. 7)
      • Modelling and learning controlled flexibility in software processes
    8. 8)
      • A translation approach to portable ontology specifications
    9. 9)
      • Ontological approach for the semantic recovery of traceability links between software artefacts
    10. 10)
      • Reasoning support for semantic web ontology family languages using alloy
    11. 11)
      • SOLAR: social link advanced recommendation system
    12. 12)
      • SEMO: a framework for customer social networks analysis based on semantics
    13. 13)
      • IT professionals: an Iberian snapshot
    14. 14)
      • BMR: benchmarking metrics recommender for personnel issues in software development projects
    15. 15)
      • Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: `OntoDSL: An ontology-based framework for domain-specific languages', Proc. 12th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS'09), October 2009, Denver, Colorado, USA, p. 408–4227
    16. 16)
      • Happel, H.J., Seedorf, S.: `Applications of ontologies in software engineering', Proc. Int. Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE'06), November 2006, Athens, GA, USA, p. 1–14
    17. 17)
      • Tairas, R., Mernik, M., Gray, J.: `Using ontologies in the domain analysis of domain-specific languages', Proc. First Int. Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering, September 2008, Toulouse, France, p. 332–342
    18. 18)
      • Bräuer, M., Lochmann, H.: `Towards semantic integration of multiple domain-specific languages using ontological foundations', Proc. Fourth Int. Workshop on Software Language Engineering (ATEM'2007), October 2007, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, p. 28–33
    19. 19)
      • Domain-specific modeling: enabling full code generation
    20. 20)
      • Modellgetriebene softwareentwicklung. Techniken, engineering, management
    21. 21)
      • Bauer, B., Roser, S.: `Semantic-enabled software engineering and development', INFORMATIK 2006 – Informatik fr Menschen, 2006, p. 293–296, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI, 94)
    22. 22)
      • Parreiras, F.S., Saathoff, C., Walter, T., Franz, T., Staab, S.: `APIs à gogo: automatic generation of ontology APIs', Proc. Third IEEE Int. Conf. on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2009), September 2009, Santa Clara, California, USA, p. 342–348
    23. 23)
      • Semantic management of middleware. Vol. 1 of semantic web and beyond
    24. 24)
      • OMG: ‘Software & systems process engineering meta-model. Object Management Group’, 2008 v2.0
    25. 25)
      • Martinho, R., Domingos, D., Varajão, J.: `A flexible perspective for software processes – supporting flexibility in the software process engineering metamodel', Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS'07), May 2007, Madeira, Portugal, p. 559–562
    26. 26)
      • Martinho, R., Domingos, D., Varajão, J.: `FlexUML: a uml profile for flexible process modelling', Proc. 19th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'2007), July 2007, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, p. 215–220
    27. 27)
      • Martinho, R., Varajão, J., Domingos, D.: `A two-step approach for modelling flexibility in software processes', Proc. 23rd IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'2008), September 2008, L'Aquila, Italy, p. 427–430
    28. 28)
      • Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing
    29. 29)
      • Logical foundations of artificial intelligence
    30. 30)
      • W3C: ‘OWL web ontology language guide – W3C recommendation’. (W3C, MIT, ERCIM, Keio, 2004)
    31. 31)
      • Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.: `The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them', IHMC CmapTools, 2006-01 Rev 2008-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008
    32. 32)
      • Studying cognitive systems in context: preface to the special section
    33. 33)
      • Concept maps: experiments on dynamic thinking
    34. 34)
      • A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps
    35. 35)
      • The unified software development process
    36. 36)
      • Regev, G., Soffer, P., Schmidt, R.: `Taxonomy of flexibility in business processes', Input Seventh Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support (BPMDS'06) Co-located with the 18th Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'06), 2006,
    37. 37)
      • Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: `Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility (extended version)',, 2007
    38. 38)
    39. 39)
      • Concept maps for the modelling of controlled flexibility in software processes
    40. 40)
      • Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address