Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Marco Schiavoni

dblp:81/843 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process modeling
0.012002
Deriving executable process descriptions from UML · ICSE 2002
Requirements engineering and software design
model-driven engineering
0.012002
Deriving executable process descriptions from UML · ICSE 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

model transformation · 0.0formal semantics · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 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.
Elisabetta Di Nitto, Luigi Lavazza, Marco Schiavoni, Emma Tracanella, Michele Trombetta
ICSE3