A Model for Specifying Rationale Using an Architecture Description Language

Silva, Lakshitha de; Balasubramaniam, Dharini

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23798-0_34

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Grasp ADL [48] is proposed as a textual language for describing architectures, which can be transformed to a graph representation and mapped to the implementation by annotations for runtime monitoring [7] and static checking [49] of structural architecture erosion. Weinreich and Buchgeher [50] propose to specify a reference architecture by a set of roles, required as well as forbidden relationships, and a set of logical constraints on roles and relationships.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Understandability of Semantic Constraints for Behavioral Software Architecture Compliance: A Controlled Experiment

Czepa

Tran

Zdun

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software architecture compliance is concerned with the alignment of implementation with its desired architecture and detecting potential inconsistencies. The work presented in this paper is specifically concerned with behavioral architecture compliance. That is, the focus is on semantic alignment of implementation and architecture. In particular, this paper evaluates three representative approaches for describing semantic constraints in terms of their understandability, namely natural language descriptions as used in many architecture documentations today, a structured language based on specification patterns that abstract underlying temporal logic formulas, and a structured causeeffect language that is based on Complex Event Processing. We conducted a controlled experiment with 190 participants using a simple randomized design with one alternative per experimental unit. Overall all approaches support a high level of correct understanding, and the statistical inference suggests that all tested approaches are equally well suited for describing semantic constraints for behavioral architecture compliance in terms of understandability. In consequence this indicates that it is possible to benefit from the tested structured languages with underlying formal representations for automated verification without having to suffer from decreased understandability. Vice versa, the results suggest that the use of natural language can be a suitable way to document architecture semantics when reliable automated support for formal verification is of minor importance.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Understandability of Semantic Constraints for Behavioral Software Architecture Compliance: A Controlled Experiment

Czepa

Tran

Zdun

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The analysis of architectural languages for the needs of practitioners

Özkaya

2018

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Architectural languages (ALs) have attracted much attention as the modeling notations for specifying and reasoning about important design decisions. In this study, 124 different existing ALs have been analyzed for a set of requirements that are crucial for practitioners. These requirements are concerned with language definition, language features, and tool support. Some of the important findings obtained from the analysis are as follows: (1) performance is the top popular nonfunctional requirement supported by ALs; (2) no ALs offer both textual and visual notation sets, one of which could be used independently; (3) process algebras are the top preferred formal method by formal ALs; (4) the physical, deployment, and operational viewpoints are rarely supported by ALs; (5) the top preferred extension mechanism of the extensible ALs is XML for syntax extension; (6) Java is the top preferred programming language in generating software code; (7) the exhaustive model checking is the top preferred automated analysis method; (8) the logic‐based formal techniques are so popular in specifying system requirements; (9) among the analysis properties considered, consistency is the top supported property for the automated checking; and (10) most ALs do not provide any discussion platform (eg, forums). Hence, these findings can be used by the new AL developers in addressing the needs of practitioners and bridging the gaps in the field. Practitioners can also use the findings to find out about the existing ALs and compare them to choose the one(s) that suits their needs best.

show abstract