Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T01:40:31.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sharing architecture knowledge through models: quality and cost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Peng Liang ,
Anton Jansen  and
Paris Avgeriou
Peng Liang
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, University of Groningen, 9700 AK, Groningen, The Netherlands; e-mail: liangp@cs.rug.nl, anton@cs.rug.nl, paris@cs.rug.nl
Anton Jansen
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, University of Groningen, 9700 AK, Groningen, The Netherlands; e-mail: liangp@cs.rug.nl, anton@cs.rug.nl, paris@cs.rug.nl
Paris Avgeriou
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, University of Groningen, 9700 AK, Groningen, The Netherlands; e-mail: liangp@cs.rug.nl, anton@cs.rug.nl, paris@cs.rug.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the field of software architecture, there has been a paradigm shift from describing structural information, such as components and connectors, to documenting architectural knowledge (AK), such as design decisions and rationale. To this end, a series of industrial and academic domain models have been proposed for defining the concepts and their relationships in the field of AK. To a large extent the merit of this new paradigm is to share and reuse AK across organizations, especially in geographically distributed settings. However, the employment of different AK domain models by different parties makes effective AK sharing challenging, as it needs to be mapped from one domain model to another. In this paper, we investigate two different approaches for sharing AK, based on either direct or indirect mapping between different AK domain models. We compare the cost and quality of these two approaches, with respect to the processing of large amounts of AK instances. To predict the quality and costs of this processing in advance, a prediction model is proposed and validated with a concrete AK sharing case. Based on the comparison results, stakeholders involved with AK sharing can select an appropriate approach by trading off quality and cost in their own context.

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 24 , Special Issue 3: Software and system engineering – part 2 , September 2009 , pp. 225 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguiar, A.David, G. 2005. WikiWiki weaving heterogeneous software artifacts. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym), San Diego, CA, USA, 67–74.Google Scholar
Akerman, A., Tyree, J. 2005. Position on ontology-based architecture. In Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 289–290.Google Scholar
Ali-Babar, M., Gorton, I., Kitchenham, B. 2006. A framework for supporting architecture knowledge and rationale management. In Rationale Management in Software Engineering, Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I. & Paech, B. (eds). Springer, 237–254.Google Scholar
Avgeriou, P., Kruchten, P., Lago, P., Grisham, P., Perry, D. 2007. Architectural knowledge and rationale: issues, trends, challenges. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 32(4), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, F., Merson, P. 2005. Experience using the Web-based tool wiki for architecture documentation. Technical note SEI-2005-TN-041, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R. 2003. Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bosch, J. 2004. Software architecture: the next step. In Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Software Architecture (EWSA), St Andrews, UK, 194–199.Google Scholar
Brickley, D., Guha, R. V. 2004. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. Recommendation, W3C.Google Scholar
Camon, E., Magrane, M., Barrell, D., Lee, V., Dimmer, E., Maslen, J., Binns, D., Harte, N., Lopez, R., Apweiler, R. 2004. The gene ontology annotation (GOA) database: sharing knowledge in UniProt with gene ontology. Nucleic Acids Research 32(90001), W313–W317.Google Scholar
Capilla, R., Nava, F., Pérez, S., Dueñas, J. C. 2006. A Web-based tool for managing architectural design decisions. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 31(5), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N., Song, I. Y., Han, H. 2006. A survey on ontology mapping. ACM SIGMOD Record 35(3), 34–41.Google Scholar
Cleverdon, C. W. 1967. The Cranfield tests on index language devices. Aslib Proceedings 19(6), 173–193.Google Scholar
Dean, M., Schreiber, G., Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., Schneider, P. F., Stein, L. A. 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. Recommendation, W3C.Google Scholar
de Boer, R. C., Farenhorst, R., Lago, P., van Vliet, H., Clerc, V., Jansen, A. 2007. Architectural knowledge: getting to the core. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Quality of Software-Architectures (QoSA), Boston, USA, 197–214.Google Scholar
Ehrig, M.Euzenat, J. 2005. Relaxed precision and recall for ontology matching. In Proceedings of the K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (IntOnt), Banff, Canada, 25–32.Google Scholar
Ehrig, M.Staab, S. 2004. QOM-quick ontology mapping. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Hiroshima, Japan, 683–697.Google Scholar
Euzenat, J. 2007. Semantic precision and recall for ontology alignment evaluation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Hyderabad, India, 348–353.Google Scholar
Fonseca, F. T., Egenhofer, M. J., Davis, C. A., Borges, K. A. V. 2000. Ontologies and knowledge sharing in urban GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24(3), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T. R. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220.Google Scholar
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 2000. IEEE recommended practice for architecture description of software intensive system, IEEE Std 1471-2000, IEEE.Google Scholar
Jansen, A.Bosch, J. 2005. Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 109–119.Google Scholar
Jansen, A., de Vries, T., Avgeriou, P.van Veelen, M. 2008. Sharing the architectural knowledge of quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Quality of Software-Architectures (QoSA), Karlsruhe, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, A., van der Ven, J., Avgeriou, P.Hammer, D. K. 2007. Tool support for architectural decisions. In Proceedings of the 6th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), Mumbai, India, 44–53.Google Scholar
Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M. 2003. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruchten, P. 2004. An ontology of architectural design decisions in software intensive systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management (SVM), Groningen, The Netherlands, 54–61.Google Scholar
Kruchten, P., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.Wolf, T. 2005. Building up and exploiting architectural knowledge. In Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 291–292.Google Scholar
Lago, P., Avgeriou, P. 2006. First workshop on sharing and reusing architectural knowledge. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 31(5), 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, P., Jansen, A., Avgeriou, P. 2008. A Case of Quality Prediction of Architecture Knowledge Sharing Through Model Mapping. Technical report RUG-SEARCH-08-L01, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Louridas, P. 2006. Using wikis in software development. IEEE Software 23(2), 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R. N. 2000. A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(1), 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D. E., Wolf, A. L. 1992. Foundations for the study of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 17(4), 40–52.Google Scholar
Silveira, C., Faria, J. P., Aguiar, A.Vidal, R. 2005. Wiki based requirements documentation of generic software products. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian Workshop on Requirements Engineering (AWRE), Melbourne, Australia, 42–51.Google Scholar
Tang, A., Babar, M. A., Gorton, I., Han, J. 2006. A survey of architecture design rationale. The Journal of Systems & Software 79(12), 1792–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, A., Jin, Y., Han, J. 2007. A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. The Journal of Systems & Software 80(6), 918–934.Google Scholar
Tyree, J., Akerman, A. 2005. Architecture decisions: demystifying architecture. IEEE Software 22(2), 19–27.Google Scholar
Uren, V., Cimiano, P., Iria, J., Handschuh, S., Vargas-Vera, M., Motta, E.Ciravegna, F. 2006. Semantic annotation for knowledge management: requirements and a survey of the state of the art. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4(1), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Ven, J., Jansen, A., Nijhuis, J., Bosch, J. 2006. Design decisions: The bridge between rationale and architecture. In Rationale Management in Software Engineering, Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I. & Paech, B. (eds). Springer, 329–346.Google Scholar
Zhuge, H. 2004. The Knowledge Grid. World Scientific.Google Scholar