Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Global Analysis: moving from software requirements specification to structural views of the software architecture

Global Analysis: moving from software requirements specification to structural views of the software architecture

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IEE Proceedings - Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

Software architecture design approaches typically treat architecture as an abstraction of the implemented system. However, doing so means that the concepts, languages, notations, and tools for architecture are much more closely related to those of detailed design and implementation than to those of software requirements. Thus the gap between requirements and architecture represents a paradigm shift, while that between architecture and detailed design does not. Global Analysis, which is part of the Siemens Four Views architecture design approach, is a set of activities that serves to reduce the magnitude of this gap by guiding the architecture design process, capturing design rationale, and supporting traceability between requirements and architecture. In this paper Global Analysis is re-examined in light of five years of teaching it, reflecting on it, comparing it to other approaches, and examining how it was applied in four new systems. This experience confirms the value of the Global Analysis activities and the importance of capturing its results. In some cases the benefit went beyond that envisioned, and in other cases Global Analysis was not applied as expected. Because the templates that are provided for Global Analysis results have such a strong influence on how the activities were performed, this will be the focus of future changes.

References

    1. 1)
      • J. Bosch . (2000) Design and use of software architectures.
    2. 2)
      • A.M. Davis . (1993) Software requirements: objects functions, states.
    3. 3)
      • I. Jacobson , M. Griss , P. Jonsson . (1997) Software reuse: architecture process and organization for business success.
    4. 4)
      • A.M. Davis . (1995) 201 principles of software development.
    5. 5)
      • B.A. Nuseibeh . Weaving together requirements and architecture. Computer , 3 , 115 - 117
    6. 6)
      • , : Proc. of the First Int. Workshop From Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'01, Toronto, Canada), 14 May 2001, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001, Available at: http://www.cin.ufpe.br/ ∼ straw01/.
    7. 7)
      • Soni, D., Nord, R.L., Hofmeister, C.: `Software architecture in industrial applications', Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, 1995, ACM Press, New York, p. 196–207.
    8. 8)
      • F. Bachmann , L. Bass , M. Klein . (2002) Illuminating the fundamental contributors to software architecture quality.
    9. 9)
      • Brandozzi, M., Perry, D.E.: `From goal-oriented requirements to architectural prescriptions: the preskriptor process', Proc. Second Int. Workshop From Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'03), 2003, p. 107–113.
    10. 10)
      • Conklin, J.: `Design rationale and maintainability', Proc. 22nd Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Science, Kailua-Kona, HI, 1989, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, p. 555–5613-6 Jan. 1989, .
    11. 11)
      • Kruchten, P.: `An ontology of architectural design decisions', Proc. 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management, December 2-3 2004, Groningen, Netherlands.
    12. 12)
      • Meszaros, G., and Doble, J.: A pattern language for pattern writing, 1997, Available at: http://www.hillside.net/patterns/.
    13. 13)
      • Bosch, J.: `Software architecture: the next step', Software Architecture, First European Workshop (EWSA), 21-22 May 2004, St Andrews, UK, 3047, p. 194–199, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci..
    14. 14)
      • `IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications - Description', 830-1998, .
    15. 15)
      • F. Buschmann , R. Meunier , H. Rohnert , P. Sommelad , M. Stal . (1996) Pattern-oriented software architecture: a system of patterns.
    16. 16)
      • J.O. Coplein . (1995) A generative development-process pattern language, Pattern languages of program design.
    17. 17)
      • D.J. Paulish . (2002) Architecture-centric software project management: a practical guide.
    18. 18)
      • E. Rechtin , M. Maier . (1997) The art of systems architecting.
    19. 19)
      • R. Schwanke , R. Lutz . Experience with the architectural design of a modest product family. Softw. Pract. Exp. , 1273 - 1296
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
      • M. Shaw , D. Garlan . (1996) Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline.
    23. 23)
      • K.C. Kang , S.G. Cohen , J.A. Hess , W.E. Novak , A.S. Peterson . (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis feasibility study.
    24. 24)
      • Nord, R.L., Hofmeister, C., Soni, D.: `Preparing for change in the architecture design of large software systems', Position paper, TC2 First Working IFIP Conf. on Software Architecture, 1999 (WICSA1) available at, http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/prof/wicsa1/.
    25. 25)
      • D.E. Perry , A.L. Wolf . Foundations for the study of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes. , 4 , 40 - 52
    26. 26)
      • Boehm, B.W.: `Software architectures: critical success factors and cost drivers', Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, 16-21 May 1994, 1994, ACM Press, New York, p. 365.
    27. 27)
      • , : Proc. of the Second Int. Workshop From Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'03), 9 May 2003, Portland, OR, Available at: http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~straw03.
    28. 28)
      • L. Bass , P. Clements , R. Kazman . (2003) Software architecture in practice.
    29. 29)
      • L. Chung , B. Nixon , E. Yu , J. Mylopoulos . (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering.
    30. 30)
      • Schwanke, R.: `Architectural requirements engineering: theory vs. practice', Proc. Second Int. Workshop From Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'03), 2003, p. 1–8.
    31. 31)
      • Obbink, H., Müller, J.K., America, P., van Ommering, R., Muller, G., van der Sterren, W., Wijnstra, J.G.: `COPA: a component-oriented platform architecting method for families of software-intensive electronic products', Tutorial for the First Software Product Line Conf., August 2000, Denver, CO, Available at: http://www.extra.research.philips.com/SAE/COPA/COPA_Tutorial.pdf.
    32. 32)
    33. 33)
      • C. Hofmeister , R. Nord , D. Soni . (2000) Applied software architecture.
    34. 34)
      • America, P., Obbink, H., Rommes, E.: `Multi-view variation modeling for scenario analysis', in van der Linden, F. (Ed.): Proc. Fifth Int. Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE-5), 2004, p. 44–65Sienna, Italy, 4-6 Nov 2003, (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 3014, .
    35. 35)
      • J. Conklin , M.L. Begeman . gIBIS: a tool for all reasons. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. , 200 - 213
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20045052
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20045052
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address