Using Bayesian belief networks for change impact analysis in architecture design

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 127-148

  Tang, Antony ^a   Nicholson, Ann ^b   Jin, Yan ^a   Han, Jun ^a  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bayesian belief networks; Design rationale; Software architecture

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION THEORY; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

ARCHITECTURE RATIONALE AND ELEMENT LINKAGE (AREL); BAYESIAN BELIEF NETWORKS (BBN); DESIGN ELEMENTS; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

EID: 33750991313     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bosch J. Software architecture: the next step. Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Software Architecture (EWSA) (2004), St Andrews, UK 194-199
2. Bratthall, L., Johansson, E., Regnell, B., 2000. Is a design rationale vital when predicting change impact? A controlled experiment on software architecture evolution. In: Second International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, pp. 126-139.
3. Burge, J., 2005. Software Engineering Using design RATionale. Ph.D. thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
4. Chung L., Nixon B., Yu E., and Mylopoulos J. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering (2000), Kluwer Academic, Boston
5. Clements P., Bachmann F., Bass L., Garlan D., Ivers J., Little R., Nord R., and Stafford J. Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. first ed. (2002), Addison Wesley
6. Conklin, J., Begeman, M., 1988. gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 140-152.
7. Cysneiros, L., Leite, J., 2001. Using UML to reflect non-functional requirements. In: Proceedings of the 11 CASCON, Toronto, pp. 202-216.
8. Dardenne A., Van-Lamsweerde A., and Fickas S. Goal-directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20 (1993) 1-36
9. Dutoit, A., Paech, B., 2000. Rationale management in software engineering. In: Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge.
10. Fenton, N., Neil, M., 2000. Software metrics: roadmap. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), May 2000, pp. 357-370.
11. FSTC, 2000. Paperless Automated Check Exchange and Settlement (PACES). Available from: .
12. Galliers J., Sutcliffe A., and Minocha S. An impact analysis method for safety-critical user interface design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 6 4 (1999) 341-369
13. Gruber, T., Russell, D., 1992. Derivation and use of design rationale information as expressed by designers. Tech. Rep. KSL-92-64, Stanford University.
14. Gruber T., and Russell D. Generative design rationale: beyond the record and replay paradigm. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 323-350 (Chapter 11)
15. Han J. Designing for increased software maintainability. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (1997), IEEE Computer Society Press 278-286
16. Herbsleb J.D., and Kuwana E. Preserving knowledge in design projects: what designers need to know. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 24-29 April 1993 (1993), ACM Press, New York 7-14
17. Hope, L., Nicholson, A., Korb, K., 2002. Knowledge engineering tools for probability elicitation. Technical Report, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University.
18. IEEE, 2000. IEEE Recommended Practice for Architecture Description of Software-Intensive System (IEEE Std 1471-2000).
19. Korb K.B., and Nicholson A.E. Bayesian Artificial Intelligence (2004), Chapman and Hall/CRC
20. Kruchten, P., Lago, P., Vliet, H.v., Wolf, T., 2005. Building up and exploiting architectural knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE/IFIP Working Conference on Software Architecture.
21. Lee J., and Lai K. What's in design rationale. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 21-52 (Chapter 2)
22. Maclean A., Young R., Bellotti V., and Moran T. Questions, options and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 53-106 (Chapter 3)
23. Moran T., and Carroll J. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
24. Mylopoulos J., Chung L., and Nixon B. Representing and using non-functional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18 6 (1992) 483-497
25. Norsys Software Corp, 1997. Netica - Application for BBN and Influence Diagrams User's Guide. Available from: .
26. Pearl J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems (1988), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA
27. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2000), Cambridge University Press
28. Perry D.E., and Wolf A.L. Foundations for the Study of Software. ACM SIGSOFT 17 4 (1992) 40-52
29. Potts C. Supporting software design: integrating design methods and design rationale. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 295-322 (Chapter 10)
30. Ramesh B., and Jarke M. Towards reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27 1 (2001) 58-93
31. Rapanotti, L., Hall, J., Jackson, M., Nuseibeh, B., 2004. Architecture-driven problem decomposition. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 73-82.
32. Regli W.C., Hu X., Atwood M., and Sun W. A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers 16 (2000) 209235
33. Shipman III F., and McCall R. Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 11 2 (1997)
34. Shum B.S., and Hammond N. Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40 4 (1994) 603-652
35. Sparx Systems, 2005. Enterprise Architect V5.00.767. Available from: .
36. Tang, A., 2005. An UML Profile Extension to Support Architecture Decision Traceability using Enterprise Architect. Available from: .
37. Tang, A., 2006. An AREL Model Checking Tool. Available from: .
38. Tang A., and Han J. Architecture rationalization: a methodology for architecture verifiability, traceability and completeness. Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS'05) (2005), IEEE, USA 135-144
39. Tang A., Babar M., Gorton I., and Han J. A survey of the use and documentation of architecture design rationale. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE/IFIP Working Conference on Software Architecture (2005), IEEE, USA
40. Tang A., Jin Y., Han J., and Nicholson A. Predicting change impact in architecture design with Bayesian belief networks. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE/IFIP Working Conference on Software Architecture (2005), IEEE, USA
41. Tyree J., and Akerman A. Architecture Decisions: Demystifying Architecture. IEEE Software 22 2 (2005) 19-27