A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BIBLIOGRAPHY [50] K. Goseva-Popstojanova, A. E. Hassan, A. Guedem, W. Abdelmoez, D. E. M. Nassar, H. H. Ammar, and A. Mili, “Architectural-Level Risk Analysis Using UML,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 946–960, 2003. [51] O. C. Z. Gotel and A. C. W. Finkelstein, “An Analysis of the Requirements Traceability Problem,” in Proceedings International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), 1994, pp. 94–101. [52] O. Gotel and A. Finkelstein, “Extended Requirements Traceability: Results of an Industrial Case Study,” in Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), Annapolis, MD, USA, 1997, pp. 169–178. [53] T. Gruber and D. Russell, “Generative Design Rationale: Beyond the Record and Replay Paradigm,” in Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use, T. Moran and J. Carroll, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, ch. 11, pp. 323–350. [54] T. R. Gruber and D. M. Russell, “Design Knowledge and Design Rationale: A Framework for Representing, Capture, and Use,” Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Standford University, California, USA, Tech. Rep., 1991. [55] T. Gruber and D. Russell, “Derivation and Use of Design Rationale Information as Expressed by Designers,” Stanford University, Tech. Rep. KSL-92-64, 1992. [56] J. Hall, M. Jackson, R. Laney, B. Nuseibeh, and L. Rapanotti, “Relating Software Requirements and Architectures Using Problem Frames,” in IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 2002, pp. 137–144. [57] M. Hamada and H. Adachi, “Recording Software Design Processes for Maintaining the Software,” in Proceedings of the 17th Computer Software and Applications Conference, 1993. [58] J. Han, “TRAM: A Tool for Requirements and Architecture Management,” in Proceedings 24th Australasian Computer Science Conference. Gold Coast, Australia: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001, pp. 60–68. [59] ——, “Designing for Increased Software Maintainability,” in Proceedings International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997, pp. 278–286. [60] P. Haumer, K. Pohl, K. Weidenhaupt, and M. Jarke, “Improving Reviews by Extended Traceability,” in Proceedings 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999. [61] W. Heaven and A. Finkelstein, “UML profile to support requirements engineering with KAOS,” IEE Proceedings - Software, vol. 151, no. 01, 2004. 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY [62] J. D. Herbsleb and E. Kuwana, “Preserving knowledge in design projects: What designers need to know,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press, Apr. 24–29 1993, pp. 7–14. [63] R. Hilliard, “Viewpoint modeling,” in Proceedings of 1st ICSE Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, 2001. [64] C. Hofmeister, R. Nord, and D. Soni, Applied Software Architecture. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 2000. [65] L. Hope, A. Nicholson, and K. Korb, “Knowledge engineering tools for probability elicitation,” Technical report, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University, Tech. Rep., 2002. [66] T. Hughes and C. Martin, “Design traceability of complex systems,” in Proceedings 4th Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems, 1998, pp. 37–41. [67] IEEE, “IEEE/EIA Standard - Industry Implementation of ISO/IEC 12207:1995, Information Technology - Software life cycle processes (IEEE/EIA Std 12207.0-1996),” 1996. [68] ——, “IEEE/EIA Guide - Industry Implementation of ISO/IEC 12207:1995, Standard for Information Technology - Software life cycle processes - Life cycle data (IEEE/EIA Std 12207.1-1997),” 1997. [69] ——, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (IEEE Std 830-1998),” 1998. [70] ——, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Architecture Description of Software- Intensive System (IEEE Std 1471-2000),” 2000. [71] ISO/ITU-T, “Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (ISO/ITU-T 10746 Part 1 - 4),” 1997. [72] A. Jarczyk, P. Loffler, and F. Shipman III, “Design Rationale for Software Engineering:A Survey,” in Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, pp. 577–586. [73] F. Jensen, Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Springer-Verlag, 2001. [74] C. Jones, “Software Engineering: The State of the Art in 2005,” http://www.spr.com, Software Productivity Research LLC, Tech. Rep., 2005. [75] M. Kajko-Mattsson, “A Survey of Documentation Practice within Corrective Maintenance,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 31–55, 2005. 218
Page 1 and 2:
A Rationale-based Model for Archite
Page 3 and 4:
maintenance. These techniques can h
Page 5 and 6:
Declaration This thesis contains no
Page 7 and 8:
2.2.6 DoD Architecture Framework .
Page 9 and 10:
5.4.6 Risk assessment in architectu
Page 11 and 12:
8.2 The architecture rationalisatio
Page 13 and 14:
12.2 Contributions . . . . . . . .
Page 15 and 16:
6.10 ≪AR≫ and ≪AAR≫ Stereot
Page 17 and 18:
11.13A Process to Synchronise Chang
Page 19 and 20:
5.13 Design Rationale Helps Evaluat
Page 21 and 22:
that architecture design is highly
Page 23 and 24:
1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 25 and 26:
1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 27 and 28:
1.4. Structure of the thesis the ch
Page 29 and 30:
Part I Problem Analysis 10
Page 31 and 32:
2.1. Industry practice of design ra
Page 33 and 34:
2.2. Architecture frameworks and de
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Chapter 3 Related work in design ra
Page 45 and 46:
3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 47 and 48:
3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 49 and 50:
3.3. Existing methods for capturing
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
3.4. Other related studies 3.3.7 Qu
Page 59 and 60:
3.4. Other related studies evolutio
Page 61 and 62:
3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 63 and 64:
3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 4 Research methodology and
Page 67 and 68:
4.1. Software engineering research
Page 69 and 70:
4.2. The chosen research and valida
Page 71 and 72:
Part II Architecture Design Rationa
Page 73 and 74:
on a regular basis. Their inputs ha
Page 75 and 76:
5.1. Architecture rationale in the
Page 77 and 78:
5.2. Survey methodology data collec
Page 79 and 80:
5.3. Survey findings experience). I
Page 81 and 82:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.1: Fre
Page 83 and 84:
5.3. Survey findings Business Goals
Page 85 and 86:
5.3. Survey findings 5.3.5 Document
Page 87 and 88:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.8 summ
Page 89 and 90:
5.3. Survey findings We used Spearm
Page 91 and 92:
5.3. Survey findings previous desig
Page 93 and 94:
5.4. Discussion of findings Since t
Page 95 and 96:
5.4. Discussion of findings or cons
Page 97 and 98:
5.5. Limitations and use design rat
Page 99 and 100:
Part III The Representation and App
Page 101 and 102:
6.1. A conceptual model for design
Page 103 and 104:
6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 105 and 106:
6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 107 and 108:
6.3. Architecture elements Figure 6
Page 109 and 110:
6.4. Architecture rationale Figure
Page 111 and 112:
6.4. Architecture rationale • ris
Page 113 and 114:
6.4. Architecture rationale depicts
Page 115 and 116:
6.5. The extended AREL To prevent c
Page 117 and 118:
6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 119 and 120:
6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 121 and 122:
6.7. AREL usability AE by ≪AEsupe
Page 123 and 124:
6.8. Summary The AREL model is exte
Page 125 and 126:
7.1. The EFT system reasoning, a co
Page 127 and 128:
7.1. The EFT system The processing
Page 129 and 130:
7.1. The EFT system not chosen beca
Page 131 and 132:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.5: Int
Page 133 and 134:
7.1. The EFT system sequence checki
Page 135 and 136:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.7: Dec
Page 137 and 138:
7.1. The EFT system Therefore, in a
Page 139 and 140:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.10: De
Page 141 and 142:
7.2. An empirical study to validate
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
7.3. Summary The case study is spec
Page 153 and 154:
8.1. Background Based on these assu
Page 155 and 156:
8.2. The architecture rationalisati
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
8.3. Other applications of ARM As d
Page 165 and 166:
8.3. Other applications of ARM Figu
Page 167 and 168:
8.3. Other applications of ARM area
Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 9 Architecture rationale an
Page 171 and 172:
9.1. Background 9.1 Background In t
Page 173 and 174:
9.2. Traceability of architecture r
Page 175 and 176:
9.4. AREL and eAREL traceability ap
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186: Chapter 10 Architecture decision de
Page 187 and 188: 10.1. Background 10.1.2 Introductio
Page 189 and 190: 10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 197 and 198: 10.3. Reasoning about change impact
Page 209 and 210: 10.5. Summary design object may cau
Page 211 and 212: 11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 213 and 214: 11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 215 and 216: 11.2. Checking AREL models Figure 1
Page 217 and 218: 11.3. Tracing AREL models Figure 11
Page 219 and 220: 11.4. Analysing AREL with BBN • S
Page 221 and 222: 11.5. Limitations Figure 11.13: A P
Page 223 and 224: Chapter 12 Conclusions 12.1 Summary
Page 225 and 226: 12.2. Contributions reasoning metho
Page 227 and 228: 12.2. Contributions implementations
Page 229 and 230: 12.3. Future work architecture deci
Page 231 and 232: 12.3. Future work to examine the co
Page 233 and 234: BIBLIOGRAPHY [10] B. W. Boehm, Soft
Page 235: BIBLIOGRAPHY [37] A. Eden and R. Ka
Page 239 and 240: BIBLIOGRAPHY [89] N. Lassing, D. Ri
Page 241 and 242: BIBLIOGRAPHY [115] D. L. Parnas,
Page 243 and 244: BIBLIOGRAPHY [142] Z. Simsek and J.
Page 245 and 246: BIBLIOGRAPHY [167] W. F. Tichy, N.
Page 247 and 248: Appendix A AREL Tool User Manual 1
Page 249 and 250: 4.1 AREL Check Model When the Check
Page 251 and 252: 4.2 AREL Model Tracing AREL model t
Page 253 and 254: Figure 9 - result of downward trace
Page 255 and 256: To initiate the graph’s creation,
Page 257 and 258: onto the diagram 14 Assign values t
Page 259 and 260: Useful Definitions The following ar
Page 261 and 262: ) Some projects only c) Not at all
Page 263 and 264: 19. I revisit architecture design d
Page 265 and 266: Complaint Procedure If you have any
Page 267 and 268: Privacy Protection Only investigato
Page 269 and 270: B. Exploring design reasoning. 1. W
Page 271 and 272: 3. Why does the system use asynchro
Page 273 and 274: C. General Comments on AREL Modelli
Page 275: IEEE Computer Society Press. A. Tan
show all

A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?