Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Artifacts with a Viewpoint-Realization Level Matrix

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Relating Software Requirements and Architectures

Abstract

We propose an approach to artifact management in software engineering that uses an artifact matrix to structure the artifact space of a project along stakeholder viewpoints and realization levels. This matrix structure provides a basis on top of which relationships between artifacts can be defined, such as consistency constraints, traceability links and model transformations. The management of all project artifacts and their relationships supports collaboration across different roles in the development process as well as change management and agile practices. Our approach is highly configurable to facilitate adaptation to different development methods and processes. It provides a basis to develop and/or to integrate generic tools that can flexibly support such different methods. In particular, it can be leveraged to improve the transition from requirements analysis to architecture design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that Eeles and Cripps [8] use the terms ‘logical’ and ‘physical’ for realization levels whereas the 4 + 1 viewpoint model in UP uses them for particular viewpoints.

  2. 2.

    Cross-cutting viewpoints such as security and performance have different characteristics; as they typically work with multiple artifacts, they are less suited to serve as matrix dimensions. However, such viewpoints can be represented a slices (projections) through an AMT matrix, e.g., with the help of keyword tags that are attached to the matrix entries.

  3. 3.

    This extreme sometimes can be observed if teams claim to be agile without having digested intent and nature of agile practices.

  4. 4.

    For instance, domain- and style-specific literature, e.g., on service modeling and SOA design can further assist with this work (see Schloss Dagstuhl Seminar on Software Service Engineering (January 2009) and [29] for examples).

  5. 5.

    Depending on the positioning of BPMN in the method used to create and configure the type-level AMT model

  6. 6.

    Such transformations are algorithms/functions that accept one or more models as input and return the same or another set of models as output

References

  1. Anwar A, Ebersold S, Coulette B, Nassar M, Kriouile A (2010) A rule-driven approach for composing viewpoint-oriented models. J Object Technol 9(2):89–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (2003) Software architecture in practice. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boiten E, Bowman H, Derrick J, Steen M (1997) Viewpoint consistency in Z and LOTOS: a case study. In: Fitzgerald J, Jones CB, Lucas P (eds) FME’97: industrial applications and strengthened foundations of formal methods (Proceedings 4th International symposium of formal methods Europe, Graz, Austria, September 1997). (Lecture notes in computer science), vol. 1313. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 644–664

    Google Scholar 

  4. Booch G (1991) Object-oriented design. Benjamin-Cummings, Redwood City

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Broy M, Feilkas M, Herrmannsdoerfer M, Merenda S, Ratiu D (2010) Seamless model-based development: from isolated tools to integrated model engineering environments. Proc IEEE 98(4):526–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buschmann F, Meunier R, Rohnert H, Sommerlad P, Stal M (1996) Pattern-oriented software architecture. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cheesman J, Daniels J (2001) UML components. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eeles P, Cripps P (2009) The process of software architecting. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  9. Egyed A, Letier E, Finkelstein A (2008) Generating and evaluating choices for fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: ASE, IEEE 99–108

    Google Scholar 

  10. Engels G, Küster JM, Groenewegen L, Heckel RA (2001) Methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In: Gruhn V (ed) Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 186–195

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1993) Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In: Sommerville I, Paul M (eds) Proceedings of the fourth European software engineering conference, Springer-Verlag, 84–99

    Google Scholar 

  12. Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1994) Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. IEEE Trans Software Eng 20(8):569–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M (1992) Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Software Engineer Knowledge Engineer 2(1):31–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fowler M (2000) UML distilled. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frankel D (2003) Model-driven architecture: applying MDA to enterprise computing. Wiley, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ghezzi C, Nuseibeh B (1998) Special issue on managing inconsistency in software development. IEEE Trans Software Eng vol Vol. 24, No. 11, November 1998, IEEE CS Press, pp. 902–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groher I, Reder A, Egyed A (2010) Incremental consistency checking of dynamic constraints. In: FASE, (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 6013. Springer, pp 203–217

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kruchten P (1999) The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kruchten P, Lago P, van Vliet H (2006) Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge. In: QoSA (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 4214. Springer, pp 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  20. Küster JM (2004) consistency management of object-oriented behavioral models. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  21. Küster JM (2006) Definition and validation of model transformations. Softw Syst Model 5(3):233–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Küster JM, Abd-El-Razik M (2007) Validation of model transformations – first experiences using a white box approach. In models in software engineering, workshops and symposia at models 2006, Genoa, Italy, 1–6 October 2006 Reports and Revised Selected Papers (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 4364. Springer, pp 193–204

    Google Scholar 

  23. Küster JM, Ryndina K (2007) Improving inconsistency resolution with side-effect evaluation and costs. In MoDELS (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 4735. Springer, pp 136–150

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maier M, Emery D, Hilliard R (2001) Introducing IEEE 1471. IEEE Computer

    Google Scholar 

  25. Milanovic N, Kutsche R-D, Baum T, Cartsburg M, Elmasgünes H, Pohl M, Widiker J (2008) Model&metamodel, metadata and document repository for software and data integration. In: MoDELS (Lecture notes in Computer Science), vol 5301. Springer, pp 416–430

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nuseibeh B, Kramer J, Finkelstein A (1994) A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans Software Eng 20(10):760–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Object Management Group (OMG) (2006) Meta Object Facility (MOF) core specification, OMG available specification version 2.0, OMG Document Number formal/06-01-01

    Google Scholar 

  28. Object Management Group (OMG) (2009) OMG unified modeling language, superstructure. version 2.2., OMG Document Number formal/2009-02-02

    Google Scholar 

  29. Papazoglou M (2007) Web services: principles and technologies. Prentice-Hall, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pohl K (2010) Requirements engineering – fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rozanski N, Woods E (2005) Software systems architecture: working with stakeholders using viewpoints and perspectives. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zimmermann O (2009) An architectural decision modeling framework for service-oriented architecture design. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IBM Research – Zurich, Rüschlikon, 8803, Switzerland

    Jochen M. Küster, Hagen Völzer & Olaf Zimmermann

Authors
  1. Jochen M. Küster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hagen Völzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olaf Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen M. Küster .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 9, Groningen, 9747, Netherlands

    Paris Avgeriou

  2. Faculty of Information, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Victoria, 3122, Australia

    John Grundy

  3. The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

    Jon G. Hall

  4. Dept. Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081 A, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Patricia Lago

  5. Werderstr. 45, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    Ivan Mistrík

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Küster, J.M., Völzer, H., Zimmermann, O. (2011). Managing Artifacts with a Viewpoint-Realization Level Matrix. In: Avgeriou, P., Grundy, J., Hall, J.G., Lago, P., Mistrík, I. (eds) Relating Software Requirements and Architectures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21001-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21001-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21000-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21001-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation