A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BIBLIOGRAPHY [76] L. Karsenty, “An Empirical Evaluation of Design Rationale Documents,” in CHI, 1996, pp. 150–156. [77] R. Kazman, L. J. Bass, M. Webb, and G. D. Abowd, “SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures,” in Proceedings 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 1994, pp. 81–90. [78] R. Kazman, M. H. Klein, M. Barbacci, T. A. Longstaff, H. F. Lipson, and S. J. Carrière, “The architecture tradeoff analysis method,” in ICECCS, 1998, pp. 68–78. [79] M. Keil, H. J. Smith, S. Pawlowski, and L. Jin, “’Why didn’t somebody tell me?’: climate, information asymmetry, and bad news about troubled projects,” SIGMIS Database, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 65–84, 2004. [80] B. Kitchenham and S. L. Pfleeger, “Principles of Survey Research, Parts 1 to 6,” Software Engineering Notes, 2001-2002. [81] B. Kitchenham, S. L. Pfleeger, B. McColl, and S. Eagan, “An empirical study of maintenance and development estimation accuracy.” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 57–77, 2002. [82] H. Koning and H. van Vliet, “A method for defining IEEE Std 1471 viewpoints,” The Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 79, pp. 120–131, 2005. [83] K. B. Korb and A. E. Nicholson, Bayesian Artificial Intelligence. Chapman and Hall / CRC, 2004. [84] P. Kruchten, “The 4+1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. pp 42–50, 1995. [85] ——, “Software Architecture-A Rational Metamodel,” in Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints ’96) on SIG- SOFT ’96 workshops, 1996. [86] P. Kruchten, P. Lago, H. v. Vliet, and T. Wolf, “Building up and Exploiting Architectural Knowledge,” in Proceedings 5th IEEE/IFIP Working Conference on Software Architecture, 2005. [87] W. Kunz and H. Rittel, Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Center for Planning and Development Research,University of California at Berkeley, 1970. [88] P. Lago and H. van Vliet, “Explicit assumptions enrich architectural models,” in Proceedings 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2005, pp. 206–214. 219
BIBLIOGRAPHY [89] N. Lassing, D. Rijsenbrij, and H. V. Vliet, “Viewpoints on Modifiability,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 453–478, 2001. [90] N. H. Lassing, P. Bengtsson, H. van Vliet, and J. Bosch, “Experiences with ALMA: Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2002. [91] J. Lee, “SIBYL: A Tool for Managing Group Decision Rationale,” in Proceedings of the Conference on on Computer-Supported Coopoerative Work, 1990, pp. 77–92. [92] ——, “Extending the Potts and Bruns Model for Recording Design Rationale,” in 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1991, pp. 114–125. [93] ——, “Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues,” IEEE Expert, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 78–85, 1997. [94] J. Lee and K. Lai, “What’s in Design Rationale,” in Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use, T. Moran and J. Carroll, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, ch. 2, pp. 21–52. [95] T. C. Lethbridge, “Studying Software Engineers: Data Collection Techniques for Software Field Studies,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 311– 341, 2005. [96] M. Li and C. Smidts, “A ranking of software engineering measures based on expert opinion.” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 811–824, 2003. [97] A. Maclean, R. Young, V. Bellotti, and T. Moran, “Questions, Options and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis,” in Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use, T. Moran and J. Carroll, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, ch. 3, pp. 53–106. [98] L. May, “Major Causes of Software Project Failures,” http : //www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1998/07/causes.asp, 1998. [99] R. McCall, “PHIBIS: Procedural Hierarchical Issue-Based Information Systems,” in Proceedings Int’l. Congress on Planning and Design Theory, 1987. [100] ——, “PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia,” Design Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 30–41, 1991. [101] C. Meares and J. Sargent, “The digital work force: building infotech skills at the speed of innovation,” http : //www.technology.gov/reports/techpolicy/digital.pdf, 1999. 220
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 and 236: BIBLIOGRAPHY [37] A. Eden and R. Ka
Page 237: BIBLIOGRAPHY [62] J. D. Herbsleb an
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?