Capturing quality requirements of product family architecture

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 49, Issue 11-12, 2007, Pages 1107-1120

  Niemelä, Eila ^a   Immonen, Anne ^a  

^a VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Quality requirement; Software architecture; Software product family; Traceability

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

INDUSTRIAL SETTINGS; QUALITY REQUIREMENT; SOFTWARE PRODUCT FAMILY;

QUALITY ASSURANCE;

EID: 34848888028     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2006.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Chung L., Gross D., and Yu E. Architectural design to meet stakeholder requirements. The 1st Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (1999), Kluwer Academic Publishers, San Antonio, TX, USA
2. Chung L., Nixon B.A., Yu E., and Mylopoulus J. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
3. Gruenbacker P., Egyed A., and Medvidovic N. Reconciling software requirements and architectures with intermediate models. Software and Systems Modeling 3 3 (2003) 235-253
4. OMG, MDA, Guide Version 1.0.1. omg/2003-16-1, J. Miller, J. Mukerji, (Eds.) 2003, Object Management Group. 62 p. Available from: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?omg/03-06-01.
5. IEEE, IEEE Standard for Software Quality Metrics Methodology, in: Std -1061-1998, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, USA, 1998.
6. ISO/IEC, Software engineering - Product quality, Part 1: Quality model, in ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001. 2001, International Organization of Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission.
7. Bass L., Clements P., and Kazman R. Software Architecture in Practice (1998), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA
8. M. Matinlassi, E. Niemelä, The Impact of Maintainability on Component-based Software Systems, in: Euromicro 2003, Antalya, IEEE Computer Society, Turkey, pp. 25-32.
9. Bosch J. Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-line Approach (2000), Addison-Wesley, Harlow
10. M. Matinlassi, Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA, in: The 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004). IEEE Computer Society, Edinburgh, UK, 2004, pp. 127-136.
11. America P., Obbink H., van Ommering R., and van der Linden F. CoPAM: A component-oriented platform architecting method family for product family engineering. In: Donohoe P. (Ed). Proceedings of the First Software Product Lines Conference, Software Product Lines, Experience and Research Directions (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA 167-180
12. Weiss D.M., and Lai C.T.R. Software Product-Line Engineering: A Family Based Software Development Process (1999), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA
13. Kang K.C., Lee J., and Donohoe P. Feature-oriented project line engineering. IEEE Software 19 4 (2002) 58-65
14. Atkinson C., Bayer J., Bunse C., Kamsties E., Laitenberger O., Laqua R., Muthig D., Paech B., Wust J., and Zettel J. Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML (2002), Addison-Wesley, London, New York
15. Niemelä E., Matinlassi M., and Lago P. Architecture-centric approach to wireless service engineering. IEC Annual Review of Communications 56 (2003) 875-889
16. Purhonen A., Niemelä E., and Matinlassi M. Viewpoints of DSP software and service architectures. Journal of Systems and Software 69 1-2 (2004) 57-73
17. Niemelä E., Kalaoja J., and Lago P. Toward an architectural knowledge base for wireless service Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31 5 (2005) 361-379
18. IEEE, IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Descriptions of Software-Intensive Systems, Std-1417-2000, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., New York, 2000, 23 p.
19. TINA, Service Architecture Specification, 1997. Available from: http: www.tinac.com.
20. K. Schmid, A comprehensive product line scoping approach and its validation, in: The 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE, Orlando, FL, USA, ACM, 2002, pp. 593-603.
21. K. Schmid, I. John. Starting product lines (I) - systematic product line planning and adoption, in: The Third Software Product Lines Conference, Boston, MA, 2004, 44 p.
22. Niemelä E., and Ihme T. Product line software engineering of embedded systems. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26 3 (2001) 118-125
23. J. Merilinna, E. Niemelä, A stylebase as a tool for modelling of quality-driven software architecture, in: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Engineering. Special issue on Programming Languages and Software Tools., vol. 11, No. 4, 2005, pp. 296-312.
24. M. Matinlassi, E. Niemelä, L. Dobrica, Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method, A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, 2002.
25. Immonen A. A method for predicting reliability and availability at the architecture level. In: Käkölä T., and Duenas J.C. (Eds). Software Product Lines. Research Issues in Engineering and Management (2006), Springer Verlag, NewYork 373-424
26. OMG, UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, Object Management Group, 2003.
27. M. Matinlassi, Evaluating the portability and maintainability of software product family architecture: Terminal software case study, in: The 4th IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture, WICSA 2004. IEEE Computer Society, Oslo, Norway, 2004, pp. 295-298.