1 / 17

SEMAT – Definitions Track

SEMAT – Definitions Track. March 17, 2010 Chair: Brian Henderson-Sellers. Overview. 1 st The role of definitions in SEMAT 2 nd Contributions from SEMAT participants’ Position Statements. SEMAT Vision revisited. Metamodel. Kernel Language (rules). As standardized. Kernel language usage

angus
Download Presentation

SEMAT – Definitions Track

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SEMAT – Definitions Track March 17, 2010 Chair: Brian Henderson-Sellers

  2. Overview 1st The role of definitions in SEMAT 2nd Contributions from SEMAT participants’ Position Statements

  3. SEMAT Vision revisited Metamodel Kernel Language (rules) As standardized Kernel language usage e.g. “Method” or “Process Model” composed of universals, practices, patterns etc. As documented for widespread usage As documented Method or Process Model Process =method enactment Process Process As enacted by As enacted by real people on a real people on a Static Static Dynamic Dynamic specific project specific project aspects aspects aspects aspects

  4. Let us start with an example Assume we have agreed upon this text as a definition: • A team is a group of named people who interact with each other

  5. Organizational Grouping Its definition Class x Brian x Cesar Team x Atif Class Team Its definition Thing Object My team (Brian, Cesar, Atif) Object Thing Definition needed in two domains What is a SEMAT definition? Team both class & object As a Venn diagram Relationships are is-instance-of = set membership

  6. Using OO modelling, can replace by Organizational Grouping No longer a class but a powertype pattern Relationship is both is-instance-of and generalization Team Class + Object Relationship is is-instance-of = set membership My team (Brian, Cesar, Atif) Object

  7. Organizational Grouping Kind Intra-Action: Boolean Organizational Grouping GroupMemberNames Relationship is classification Relationship is generalization Relationship is is-instance-of Team Intra-Action = YES GroupMemberNames My team (Brian, Cesar, Atif) Expanding

  8. x More mathematical representation Organizational Grouping class Organizational GroupingKind class Team My team Company x x x x x Team x x x x x Company x x x x x x x Partnership Partnership Organizational GroupingKind Organizational Grouping Team Company Team

  9. Strictly, in mathematics • A power set P(S) or 2S is the set of all subsets of S • What we call a powertype is only a subset of P(S) and is called a family of sets over S

  10. Superimposing SEMAT vision Organizational GroupingKind Intra-Action Organizational Grouping GroupMemberNames Kernel Language (rules) Metamodel Team Kernel language usage Method or Process Model Intra-Action=YES GroupMemberNames Process =method enactment My team (Brian, Cesar, Atif) Process Process

  11. Language/rules domain Kernel language Method/usage domain methodologies assessment quality tools Endeavour Domain This is similar to ISO architecture

  12. Our original example text • A team is a group of named people who interact with each other OrganizationalGrouping OrganizationalGroupingKind

  13. Contributions from Position Statements • Definition of “software engineering” problematicalRough draft fast – refine iteratively over time • Focus on Basics – avoid methodology wars – several position statements expressed caution • Several address teams, team structures and other people issues • Several talk of method “components” (or similar name) and SME (e.g. Firesmith, Spence, Humphrey, Fujitsu)

  14. More contributions • Several talk of how to measure success • Is project management in scope? (Page-Jones argues against; others argue for) • Inclusion of user interface (Constantine) • Several mention taxonomy (Page-Jones), metamodels and ontologies (Firesmith, Bezivin, Henderson-Sellers) • No agreed terminology (Spence notes widespread multiple meanings of “release” in industry)

  15. How to proceed in the future? • Identify what concepts require an SE definition (work with Universals Track) • Agree on all these definitions in words including its name (seek overall consistent terminology but allow well-documented synonyms) • Model them formally – link to kernel languagepossibilities include ontologies, metamodels, formal languages like VDM, category theory etc. • Kernel language domain concepts can be partially validated w.r.t. method domain ones

  16. Last look at original example text • A team is a group of named people who interact with each other OrganizationalGrouping The challenge (at least to me) is to maintain focus on one specific domain and not accidentally merge two OrganizationalGroupingKind

  17. How to Proceed Today? • Agree on an overall architecture esp. w.r.t. links to Kernel Language Track and Universals Track • Ensure Track proposals are flexible enough to align with Theory Track deliberations • How to support Assessment Track • Discuss sources of definitions • Identify high level groupings of definitions to allocate to Track subgroups • Identify Definition Track members willing to research likely contentious definitions

More Related