A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.2. Architecture frameworks and design rationale 2.2.6 DoD Architecture Framework The US Department of Defense released the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) version 1.0 [31] for DoD architecture compliance. DoDAF Version 1.0 is developed specifically for the US DoD to support its war-fighting operations, business operations and processes. It was developed from and superseded the previous architecture framework C4ISR Architecture Framework Version 2.0. Architecture development techniques have been provided in DoDAF to specify the processes for scope definition, data requirements definition, data collection, architecture objectives analysis and documentation. DoDAF uses Core Architecture Data Model (CADM) for architecture documentation. CADM is a standardized taxonomy to define views and their elements in a database. All Views provide an overview, summary and integrated dictionary of the architecture; Operational Views describe the business and the operations of the architecture, they describe the operation nodes, nodes connectivity, information exchange, organization relationship, operation rules, event-trace and logical data model; System Views describe the system and its components; Technical Views describes the current standard profile and the future technical standards forecast. The DoDAF framework is specifically designed to support defense operations and therefore some of its processes and taxonomies are domain dependent. CADM is a well defined schema to support the documentation of architecture models in this domain. Using CADM and traceability matrix, operational requirements and design decisions can be traced in the architecture. DoDAF does not have provisions to record architecture rationale. 2.2.7 Architecture framework summary Architecture frameworks use viewpoints to represent different perspectives. The interpretation of viewpoints are slightly different to suit the objectives of each framework. However, the viewpoints can be generalised by their common concerns: • Business Viewpoint - represents the owners and stakeholders’ requirements. Some frameworks broaden the interpretation to not only include functional requirements, but non-functional requirements and business environments. • Data Viewpoint - represents the information and data that are kept within the system. Such information can include the data within the database and other information repositories; some frameworks extend their definitions to include all information that are kept and exchanged between systems. 21
2.2. Architecture frameworks and design rationale • Applications Viewpoint - the software design of the system. It represents the highlevel design of the system. Some frameworks have further classifications such as a software configuration model and a model representing process execution. • Technology Viewpoint - the technologies which support the system. This represents the hardware and software platforms and their organisations in the architecture. Although some of the frameworks specify the processes and the methodologies that are used in the construction of these viewpoints, for instance, DoDAF have suggested to use design tradeoffs [31] and TOGAF specifies the capture of design rationale [71, 164] in their models, there is still very little considerations on the decision making process which underpins and justifies the architecture. In an earlier study to compare architecture frameworks [160], it was found that these architecture frameworks do not mandate rationale capture nor do they specify how rationale should be represented or used. Without a proper guideline, architecture design rationale is probably not captured in these large enterprise systems. There are three implications: • Lack of Justifications - A lack of design rationale documentation in large enterprise systems development implies that stakeholders would have to assume that the architecture design decisions that are made are comprehensive and correct. • Knowledge Loss - The knowledge that is required to support maintenance in the long-term may be lost because the rationale behind the architecture design are gone when original designers are no longer available. • Quality Depends on Designer Experience - Without a systematic design rationalisation process, architecture design and its quality would have a high dependency on the level of experience of the designer. Although the IEEE 1471-2000 standard [70] and some of the architecture frameworks discuss the importance of design rationale, none of them provide much guidance in the use, the capture or the representation of design rationale. This does not necessarily mean that the architecture design are inferior, but the lack of an objective decision-making framework would place a higher reliance on the experience and the quality of the decision makers whereas a well-defined decision making approach can provide a systematic way to ensure architecture design qualities. 22
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 39: 2.2. Architecture frameworks and de
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 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 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
10.3. Reasoning about change impact
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
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 and 238:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [62] J. D. Herbsleb an
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?