Advertisement

An Iterative Process for Component-Based Software Development Centered on Agents

  • Yves Wautelet
  • Sodany Kiv
  • Manuel Kolp
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6910)

Abstract

The use of the component-based approach to develop large-scale information systems has become increasingly prominent over the past decade. However, there is a lack of established frameworks that cover the life cycle of component-based system development. This paper proposes a formalization of the process for component-based software development through the use of the agent paradigm. To this end, components are considered as low-level functional providers integrated into the software project through an agent architecture subject to monitoring - i.e. checking constraints - in order to determine the proper advancement of the software project. The use of agents typically allows a logical independence: the business logic is built separated from components making their integration process more flexible. The component selection is performed on two levels: components are selected on the basis of actors’ intentions at the analysis level, and of their functional performances at the runtime level. The process is thus highly iterative and formal constraints are provided to monitor the iterative progression on a management point of view.

Keywords

Sequence Diagram Requirement Engineer Business Logic Realization Path Outbound Logistics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alves, C., Castro, J., Alencar, F.: Requirements engineering for cots selection. In: The Third Workshop on Requirements Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayala, C.: Systematic construction of goal-oriented cots taxonomies. PhD Thesis (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beus-Dukic, L., Bøegh, J.: COTS software quality evaluation. In: Erdogmus, H., Weng, T. (eds.) ICCBSS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2580, pp. 72–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., Port, D., Yang, Y., Bhuta, J.: Not all CBS are created equally: COTS-intensive project types. In: Erdogmus, H., Weng, T. (eds.) ICCBSS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2580, pp. 36–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, A., Johnston, S., Kelly, K.: Using service-oriented architecture and component-based development to build web service applications. White paper, IBM Corporation (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B.W., Abts, C., Clark, E.B.: Cocots: a cots software integration cost model: model overview and preliminary data findings. In: The 11th ESCOM Conference, Munich, Geremany, pp. 325–333 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the tropos project. Inf. Syst. 27(6), 365–389 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, L., Cooper, K.: Defining goals in a cots-aware requirements engineering approach. System Engineering 7(1), 61–83 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estrada, H., Rebollar, A.M., Pastor, Ó., Mylopoulos, J.: An empirical evaluation of the i* framework in a model-based software generation environment. In: Martinez, F.H., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 513–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Modeling security requirements through ownership, permission and delegation. In: RE, pp. 167–176 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Requirements engineering for trust management: model, methodology, and reasoning. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 5(4), 257–274 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group. Software process engineering metamodel. version 2.0. Technical report (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haesen, R., Snoeck, M., Lemahieu, W., Poelmans, S.: On the definition of service granularity and its architectural impact. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 375–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    IBM. The rational unified process. Rational Software Corporation, Version 2003.06.00.65 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiv, S., Wautelet, Y., Kolp, M.: A process for cots-selection and mismatches handling - a goal-driven approach. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A.L.N., Sharp, B. (eds.) ICAART (1), pp. 98–106. INSTICC Press (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolp, M., Wautelet, Y., Faulkner, S.: Social-centric design of multi-agent architectures. In: Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kontio, J.: A cots selection method and experiences of its use. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Software Engineering Workshop, Maryland (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruchten, P.: The rational unified process: An introduction. Addison-Wesley, Longman (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunda, D., Brooks, L.: Applying social-technical approach for cots selection. In: Proceeding of the 4th UKAIS Conference, University of York (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maiden, N.A.M., Kim, H., Ncube, C.: Rethinking process guidance for selecting software components. In: Palazzi, B., Gravel, A. (eds.) ICCBSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2255, pp. 151–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pache, G., Spalanzani, A.: La gestion des chanes logistiques multi-acteurs: perspectives stratgiques. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, PUG (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pastor, O., Estrada, H., Martínez, A.: The strengths and weaknesses of the i* framework: an experimental evaluation. In: Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. Cooperative Information Systems series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Royce, W.: Software project management: a unified framework. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sai, V., Franch, X., Maiden, N.A.M.: Driving component selection through actor-oriented models and use cases. In: Kazman, R., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2959, pp. 63–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Samii, A.K.: Stratgie logistique, supply chain management: Fondements - méthodes - applications, Dunod (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tran, V., Liu, D.-B., Hummel, B.: Component-based systems development: challenges and lessons learned. In: International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, p. 452 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wautelet, Y.: A goal-driven project management framework for multi-agent software development: The case of i-tropos. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain School of Management (LSM), Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium (August 2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wautelet, Y., Achbany, Y., Kiv, S., Kolp, M.: A service-oriented framework for component-based software development: An i* driven approach. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS. LNBIP, vol. 24, pp. 551–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wautelet, Y., Achbany, Y., Kolp, M.: A service-oriented framework for mas modeling. In: Cordeiro, J., Filipe, J. (eds.) ICEIS (3-1), pp. 120–128 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu, E.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Wautelet
    • 1
  • Sodany Kiv
    • 2
  • Manuel Kolp
    • 2
  1. 1.Hogeschool-Universiteit BrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Université catholique de LouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations