Abstract
Component-based approaches to elaborate software must deal with the fact that in practical settings, components information may be incomplete, imprecise and uncertain, and requirements may be likewise. Architects wanting to evaluate candidate architectures regarding requirements satisfaction need to use whatever information be available about components, however imperfect. Imperfect information can be dealt with using specialized analytical formalisms, such as fuzzy values for imprecision and rough sets for incompleteness; but if used, evaluations need to compare and rank using non-scalar, non-symbolic values. This article presents an approach to systematically describe components’ imperfect information, and to evaluate and rank whole component assemblies, by using credibility values-based “support scores” that aggregate imperfect information about requirements, mechanisms and components. The approach builds on the Azimut framework, which offers progressive refinement of architectural entities via architectural policies, architectural mechanisms, components, and component assemblies. An example of the proposed approach and “what-if” analysis are illustrated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Astudillo, H., Pereira, J., López, C.: Identifying “Interesting” Component Assemblies for NFRs Using Imperfect Information. In: Gruhn, V., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4344, pp. 204–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Alves, C., Castro, J.: CRE: A Systematic Method for COTS Components Selection. In: 15th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (2001)
Alves, C., Finkelstein, A.: Challenges in COTS-Making: a Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering Perspective. In: Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. on SEKE 2002 (2002)
Britton, C., Bye, P.: IT Architectures and Middleware: Strategies for Building Large, Integrated Systems, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)
Cao, F., Bryant, B., Raje, R., Auguston, M., Olson, A., Burt, C.: A Component Assembly Approach Based on Aspect-Oriented Generative Domain Modeling. In: ENTCS 2005, pp. 119–136 (2005)
Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)
Chung, L., Cooper, K.: COTS-Aware Requirements Engineering and Software Architecting. In: Procs. IWSSA 2004 (2004)
Firesmith, D.: Specifying Reusable Security Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 3(1), 61–75 (2004), http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_01/column6
Gokhale, A., Balasubramanian, K., Lu, T.: CoSMIC: Addressing Crosscutting Deployment and Configuration Concerns of Distributed Real-Time and Embedded Systems. In: Procs. OOPSLA 2004, pp. 218–219. ACM Press, New York (2004)
Kontio, J.: A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. In: Procs. ICSE 1996, pp. 201–209 (1996)
Kunda, D., Brooks, L.: Applying Social-Technical Approach to COTS Selection. In: Procs. 4th UKAIS Conference (1999)
López, C., Astudillo, H.: Explicit Architectural Policies to Satisfy NFRs Using COTS. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 227–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
López, C., Astudillo, H.: Multidimensional Catalogs for Systematic Exploration of Component-Based Design Spaces. In: First International Workshop on Advanced Software Engineering (IWASE 2006) (2006)
Ncube, C., Maiden, N.: PORE: Procurement-Oriented Requirements Engineering Method for the CBSE Development Paradigm. In: International Workshop on CBSE (1999)
Ochs, M.: A COTS Acquisition Process: Definition and Application Experience. In: Procs. 11th ESCOM Conference, Shaker, Maastricht (2000)
Object Management Group: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1 (2003), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?omg/03-06-01
Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)
Pomerol, J.C., Barba-Romero, S.: Multicriterion Decision in Management - Principles and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)
Philips, B., Polen, S.: Add Decision Analysis to Your COTS Selection Process. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Software Technology Support Center Crosstalk (April 2002)
Roy, B., McCord, M.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)
Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1990)
Shaw, M.: Truth vs Knowledge: The Difference Between What a Component Does and What We Know It Does. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD 1996), pp. 181–185. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)
Szyperski, C.: Component Software, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2002)
Tannenbaum, A., van Steen, M.: Distributed Systems Principles and Paradigms. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information & Control 8, 338–353 (1965)
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R.: Operations Management, 4th edn. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2004)
Policy and Mechanism Definitions, http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/MFA/Policy+and+Mechanism
Authentication Mechanisms, http://sarwiki.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Authentication_Mechanisms
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Astudillo, H., Pereira, J., López, C. (2006). Evaluating Alternative COTS Assemblies from Imperfect Component Information. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnkovic, I., Reussner, R. (eds) Quality of Software Architectures. QoSA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4214. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11921998_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11921998_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-48819-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48820-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)