Pattern-oriented knowledge model for architecture design

Kumar, K. Rakesh Tej; Prabhakar, T. V.

doi:10.1145/2493288.2493311

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The IC1, IC2, EC4, EC5, and EC6 criteria were applied. Finally, after applying the three rounds and the IC and EC, 36 primary studies were obtained (see Table 3 ). The data extraction and synthesis processes for the 36 primary studies were conducted by using a form in which each study was identified with ID [13–15, 18, 22–53 ] and classified according to its context, validation, terminology, and usefulness in answering each research question.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 41 papers obtained from conducting the review phase were coded as in [3, 11, 13–15, 18, 22–56 ]. They are the primary studies used to address the three research questions (see references and Complementary data (https://bit.ly/34rAYkm )).…”

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of implementing patterns in software systems is to provide a solution depending on the context. Taking into account this premise, Kumar and Prabhakar [33 ] did not present patterns or architectural elements extracted from the source code or binary files. Conversely, they proposed a design knowledge model to be applied as a reference in the reverse engineering process.…”

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Papers such as [50–52 ] also present an analysis of the patterns and their relationship with tactics, and quality attributes. Finally, Kumar and Prabhakar [33 ] also show the relationships between some patterns proposed by Zimmer [59 ] and Avgeriou and Zdun [60 ] by identifying rules such as similarity, specialisation, use, alternative, and refinement.…”

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Towards a reference process for software architecture reconstruction

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, software systems remain useful and competitive; entail the inevitable need to change over time and to be adapted to new technologies, platforms, and architectures. These quick changes imply following systematic, automated, or standardised processes that provide recommendations and guidelines to architects during software architecture reconstruction. Considerable research work on architecture reconstruction has been conducted. However, it needs to be studied thoroughly to determine what are the common activities and elements to reconstruct software architectures, and to define a reference process for systematically guiding the evolution of software architectures. This work addresses the need for defining a process for software architecture reconstruction called software improvement in the reconstruction of architectures (SIRA). This process has been rigorously designed from the results of a systematic literature review and a small survey of related work. As a result, SIRA integrates and extends previous research and can be conceived as a reference process to reconstruct software architectures in a semi‐automated way. In addition, this work also determines the common elements of the architecture reconstruction process: (i) techniques and activities; (ii) architectural elements, patterns, and attributes; (iii) mechanisms and strategies; and (iv) the automation and recommendation tasks of the process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reconstruction and Reverse Engineering Of Software Architementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a reference process for software architecture reconstruction

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Related work the ISO 42010, describing software architecture elements, is developed in Emery & Hiliard (2009) Emery and Hilliard (2009) and in Kumar & Prabhakar (2010) Kumar and Prabhakar (2010); and Antunes et al (2013) Antunes et al (2013) argues that different architecture domains can be integrated and analyzed through the use of ontologies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

SQuAP-Ont: An ontology of software quality relational factors from financial systems

Ciancarini

Nuzzolese

Presutti

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality, architecture, and process are considered the keystones of software engineering. ISO defines them in three separate standards. However, their interaction has been scarcely studied, so far. The SQuAP model (Software Quality, Architecture, Process) describes twenty-eight main factors that impact on software quality in banking systems, and each factor is described as a relation among some characteristics from the three ISO standards. Hence, SQuAP makes such relations emerge rigorously, although informally. In this paper, we present SQuAP-Ont, an OWL ontology designed by following a well-established methodology based on the re-use of Ontology Design Patterns (i.e. ODPs). SQuAP-Ont formalises the relations emerging from SQuAP to represent and reason via Linked Data about software engineering in a three-dimensional model consisting of quality, architecture, and process ISO characteristics.

show abstract