Abstract
In most requirements engineering and software architecture documents, empha-sis is placed on the chosen alternative. The discarded ones, and the arguments that led to a particular choice, are often not explicitly recorded and documented. This makes it difficult to retrace decisions and explore alternatives. We have developed a representation for capturing quality requirements and associated architectural solution fragments, called the Feature-Solution (FS) graph. We use the knowledge captured in the FS-graph to iteratively compose an architecture. This paper shows that when the knowledge in the FS-graph captures context-sensitive architectural knowledge, such as the concerns of different stakeholders, this representation can also be used to document and reason about architectural trade-offs. The result not only documents feasible architectures, but also the traces of design decisions that led to those architectures, which is a valuable asset during the further implementation and evolution of the system.
The updated original online version for this book can be found at DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35607-5_15
Chapter PDF
References
Special Section: Managing Inconsistency in Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24 (11): 906–1001, 1998.
Special Section: Managing Inconsistency in Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25 (6): 782–870, 1999.
L. Baum, M. Becker, L. Geyer, and G. Molter. Mapping Requirements to Reusable Components using Design Spaces. In Proceedings 4th International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pages 159–167. IEEE, 2000.
Simon Buckingham Shum and Nick Hammond. Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 40 (4): 603–652, 1994.
L. Chung, D. Gross, and E. Yu. Architectural design to meet stakeholder requirements. In P. Donohue, editor, Software Architecture, pages 545–564. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
Krzysztof Czarnecki and Ulrich W. Eisenecker. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 2000.
Peta Darke and Graeme Shanks. Stakeholder Viewpoints in Requirements Definition: A Framework for Understanding Viewpoint Development Approaches. Requirements Engineering Journal, 1: 88–105, 1996.
Hans de Bruin and Hans van Vliet. Scenario-based generation and evaluation of software architectures. In Jan Bosch, editor, Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Generative and Component-Based Software Engineering (GCSE’2001) Erfurt Germany volume 2186 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) pages 128–139, Berlin, Germany, September 10–13, 2001. Springer-Verlag.
Hans de Bruin and Hans van Vliet. Top-down composition of software architectures. In Per Runeson, editor, Proceedings of 9th International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS’2002), Lund, Sweden, pages 1–10, April 8–11, 2002.
Jaap Gordijn and Hans Akkermans. e3-value: Design and evaluation of e-business models. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(4):11–50,2001. Special issue on e-business.
Jaap Gordijn, Hans Akkermans, and Hans van Vliet. Value based requirements creation for electronic commerce applications. In Proceedings of HICSS 33, Hawaii, USA, 2000.
Jaap Gordijn, Hans de Bruin, and Hans Akkermans. Scenario methods for viewpoint integration in e-business requirements engineering. In Proceedings of HICSS 34, Hawaii, USA, January 3–6, 2001.
Paul Grünbacher, Alexander Egyed, and Nenad Medvidvic. Reconciling Software Requirements and Architectures: The CBSP Approach. In Proceedings 5th IEEE InternationaI Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pages 202–211. IEEE, 2001.
K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and S. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, 1990.
R. Kazman, M. Barbacci, M. Klein, and S.J. Carriere. Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis. pages 54–63, 1999.
R. Kazman, M. Klein, and P. Clements. ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Technical Report Technical Report CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburg, USA, 2000.
Axel van Lamsweerde. Requirements engineering in the year 00: A research perspective. In Conference Proceedings ICSE’00 pages 5–19, Limerick, Ireland, 2000. ACM.
Allen MacLean, Richard M. Young, Victoria M.E. Bellotti, and Thomas P. Moran. Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (3 amp 4): 201–250, 1991.
T.P. Moran and J.M. Carroll, editors. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1994.
John Mylopoulos, Lawrence Chung, Stephen Liao, Huaiqing Wang, and Eric Yu. Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Software, 18 (1): 92–96, January 2001.
Bashar Nuseibeh. Weaving Together Requirements and Architectures. IEEE Computer, 34 (3): 115–117, 2001.
Jung-Won Park, Daniel Port, and Barry Boehm. Supporting Distributed Collaborative Priorization for WinWin Requirements Capture and Negotiation. In Proceedings 3rd World Multi Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI’99), pages 578584. IIIS, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Bruin, H., van Vliet, H., Baida, Z. (2002). Documenting and Analyzing a Context-Sensitive Design Space. In: Bosch, J., Gentleman, M., Hofmeister, C., Kuusela, J. (eds) Software Architecture. WICSA 2002. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 97. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35607-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35607-5_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6538-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35607-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive