An Ontology-Based Approach for Modelling Architectural Styles

  • Claus Pahl
  • Simon Giesecke
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4758)


The conceptual modelling of software architectures is of central importance for the quality of a software system. A rich modelling language is required to integrate the different aspects of architecture modelling, such as architectural styles, structural and behavioural modelling, into a coherent framework. We propose an ontological approach for architectural style modelling based on description logic as an abstract, meta-level modelling instrument. Architectural styles are often neglected in software architectures. We introduce a framework for style definition and style combination. The link between quality requirements and conceptual modelling of architectural styles is investigated. The application of the ontological framework in the form of an integration into existing architectural description notations such as ACME and UML-based approaches, and also service ontologies is illustrated.


Software architecture modelling architecture ontology architectural style description logics quality-driven development 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.: Architecture-driven modelling and analysis. In: Cant, T. (ed.) SCS 2006. Proceedings of the 11th Australian Workshop on Safety Related Programmable Systems. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 69 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A Classification and Comparison framework for Software Architecture Description Languages. In: Jazayeri, M. (ed.) ESEC 1997 and ESEC-FSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1301, pp. 60–76. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Magee, J., Dulay, N., Eisenbach, S., Kramer, J.: Specifying Distributed Software Architectures. In: Botella, P., Schäfer, W. (eds.) ESEC 1995. LNCS, vol. 989, pp. 137–153. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuesta, C.E., del Pilar Romay, M., de la Fuente, P., Barrio-Solorzano, M.: Architectural Aspects of Architectural Aspects. In: Morrison, R., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3527, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abowd, G., Allen, R., Garlan, D.: Formalizing style to understand descriptions of software architecture. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 4(4), 319–364 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spitznagel, B., Garlan, D.: Architecture-based performance analysis. In: SEKE 1998. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (June 1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thöne, S., Varro, D.: Style-based refinement of dynamic software architectures. In: WICSA4. Proc. 4th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 155–164. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cortellessa, V., Di Marco, A., Inverardi, P.: Software performance model-driven architecture. In: SAC 2006. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1218–1223. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giesecke, S.: A Method for Integrating Enterprise Information Systems based on Middleware Styles. In: ICEIS 2006. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Doctoral Symposium, pp. 24–37. INSTICC Press (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giesecke, S., Bornhold, J., Hasselbring, W.: Middleware-induced Architectural Style Modelling for Architecture Exploration. In: Proc. Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazman, R., Carriere, S.J., Woods, S.G.: Toward a Discipline of Scenario-based Architectural Evolution. Annals of Software Engineering 9(1-4), 5–33 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baader, F., McGuiness, D., Nardi, D., Schneider, P.P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barrett, R., Patcas, L.M., Murphy, J., Pahl, C.: Model Driven Distribution Pattern Design for Dynamic Web Service Compositions. In: ICWE 2006. International Conference on Web Engineering, Palo Alto, US, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Logics of programs. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 789–840. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schild, K.: A Correspondence Theory for Terminological Logics: Preliminary Report. In: Proc. 12th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: The Goal/Question/Metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. I, pp. 528–532. Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung, H.-W., Kim, S.-G., Chung, C.-S.: Measuring software product quality: A survey of ISO/IEC 9126. IEEE Software 21(5), 88–92 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC: Software engineering – Product quality – Part 1: Quality model. Published standard (June 2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canal, C., Pimentel, E., Troya, J.M.: Compatibility and inheritance in software architectures. Science of Computer Programming 41, 105–138 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Clements, P., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, J., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architecture: Documenting Behavior. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TN-001. SEI, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warmer, J.B., Kleppe, A.G.: The Object Constraint Language – Precise Modeling With UML, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web Service Modeling Ontology. Applied Ontology 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    DAML-S Coalition. DAML-S: Web Services Description for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 279–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pahl, C.: An Ontology for Software Component Matching. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), Special Edition on Component-based Systems Engineering 7 (in press, 2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pahl, C., Casey, M.: Ontology Support for Web Service Processes. In: ESEC/FSE’03. Proc. European Software Engineering Conference and Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Semantic Web Services Language (SWSL) Committee: Semantic Web Services Framework (SWSF) (2006),
  29. 29.
    Object Management Group: Ontology Definition Metamodel - Submission (OMG Document: ad/2006-05-01). OMG (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hirsch, D., Kramer, J., Magee, J., Uchitel, S.: Modes for Software Architectures. In: Gruhn, V., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4344, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Pahl
    • 1
  • Simon Giesecke
    • 2
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring
    • 2
  1. 1.Dublin City University, School of Computing, Dublin 9Ireland
  2. 2.University of Oldenburg, Software Engineering Group, D-26111 OldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations