Quantitative analysis of service-oriented architectures

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 42-60

  Iacob, Maria Eugenia ^a   Jonkers, Henk ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b TELEMATICA INSTITUUT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Enterprise architecture; Model driven architecture; Performance analysis; Service oriented architecture

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SERVICES; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE; MODEL DRIVEN ARCHITECTURES; MODEL DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT; NON-FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS; NON-FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS; PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS; REVERSE TRANSFORMATION; SERVICE-ORIENTED ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURES;

SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE (SOA);

EID: 49249130370     PISSN: 15481115     EISSN: 15481123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jeis.2007010103     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Alsaadi, A. (2004). A performance analysis approach based on the UML class diagram. ACM SIGSOFT software engineering notes, 29(1).
2. Balsamo, S., & Simeoni M. (2001a). Deriving performance models from software architecture specifications,In Proceedings of the 15th European simulation multiconference. Society for Computer Simulation.
3. Balsamo, S., & Simeoni M. (2001b). On Transforming UML models into performance models. Workshop on transformations in UML. Genova, Italy.
4. Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., & Merseguer, J. (2002). From UML sequence diagrams and state charts to analysable Petri net models. Proceedings 3rd international workshop on software and performance (pp. 35-45). Rome.
5. BiZZdesign. (2006). BiZZdesigner. URL http://www.bizzdesign.nl/ html/bizzdesigner_en.html
6. Boekhoudt, P., Jonkers, H., & Rougoor, M. (2000). Graph-based analysis of business process models. In N. Mastorakis (Ed.), Mathematics and computers in modern science: Proceedings of the WSES /MIUE/HNA international conference (pp. 227-235). Montego Bay, Jamaica.
7. Bosch, J., & Grahn, H. (1998). Characterising the performance of three architectural styles. In Proceedings First International Workshop on Software and Performance. Santa Fe, NM.
8. BPMI (2003). Business Process Management Initiative: Business Process Modeling Notation (working draft 1.0).
9. Broens, T., Halteren, A. van, Sinderen, M. van, & Wac, K. (2005). Towards an application framework for context-aware m-health applications. Proceedings 11th Open European Summer School. Colmenarejo, Spain.
10. Buuren, R. van, Jonkers, H., Iacob, M.-E., & Strating, P. (2004). Composition of relations in enterprise architcture models. In H. Ehrig et al. (Eds.), Graph transformations - Proceedings of the Second International Conference (pp. 39-53). Rome.
11. Canevet, C., Gilmore, S., Hillston, J., Kloul, L., & Stevens, P. (2004). Analysing UML 2.0 activity diagrams in the software performance engineering process. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(1).
12. Cortellessa, V., & Mirandola, R. (2000). Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams. Proceedings 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance (pp. 58-70), Ottawa, Canada.
13. DiMarco, A., & Inverardi, P. (2004). Compositional generation of software architecture performance QN models. In J. Magee et al. (Eds.), Proceedings 4th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (pp. 37-46). Oslo.
14. Eck, P. van, Blanken, H., & Wieringa, R. (2004). Project GRAAL. Towards operational architecture alignment. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(3), 235-255.
15. Eertink H., Janssen, W., Oude Luttighuis, P., Teeuw, W., & Vissers, C. (1999). A business process design language. Proceedings First World Congress on Formal Methods. Toulouse, France.
16. Gu, G.P., & Petriu, D.C. (2002). XSLT transformation from UML models to LQN performance models. Proceedings 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance (pp. 227-234). Rome.
17. Harrison, P., & Patel, N. (1992). Performance modeling of communication networks and computer architectures. New York: Addison-Wesley.
18. Iacob, M.-E., & Jonkers, H. (2004). Quantitative analysis of enterprise architectures. Enschede, the Netherlands: Telematica Instituut (TI/RS/2004/06).
19. Iacob, M.-E., & Jonkers, H. (2005). Quantitative analysis of enterprise architectures. Proceedings First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications. Geneva.
20. IEEE. (2000). IEEE standard 1471-2000: Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems.
21. Jonkers, H., Janssen, W., Verschut, A., & Wierstra, E. (1998). A unified framework for design and performance analysis of distributed systems. Proceedings 3rd annual IEEE international computer performance and dependability symposium (pp. 109-118). Durham, NC.
22. Jonkers, H., Boekhondt, P., Rougoor, M., & Wierstra, E. (1999). Completion time and critical path analysis for the optimisation of business process models. In M. Obaidat, A. Nisanci, & B. Sadoun (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 summer computer simulation conference (pp. 222-229), Chicago.
23. Jonkers, H., & Swelm, M. van (1999). Queueing analysis to support distributed system Design. In M.S. Obaidat, & M. Ajmone Marsan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems (pp. 300-307), Chicago.
24. Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Buuren, R. van, Hoppenbrouwers, S., Bonsangue, M., & Torre, L. van der (2004). Concepts for modelling enterprise architectures. International Journal Of Cooperative Information Systems, 13 (3), 257-287.
25. Jonkers, H., Iacob, M.-E., Lankhorst, M., & Strating, P. (2005). Integration and analysis of functional and non-functional aspects in model-driven e-service development. In Proceedings 9th IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (pp. 229-238). Enschede, The Netherlands.
26. Karsai, G., & Agrawal, A. (2003). Graph transformations in OMG's Model Driven Architecture. In J.L. Pfaltz, M. Nagl, M., & B. Böhlen (Eds.), Proceedings 2nd international workshop on applications of graph transformations with industrial relevance (pp. 243-259). Charlottesville, VA.
27. Kazman, R., Bass, L., Abowd, G., & Webb, M. (1994). SAAM: A method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. Proceedings 16th international conference on software engineering (pp. 81-90). Sorento, Italy.
28. Leeuwen, D. van, Doest, H. ter, & Lankhorst, M. (2004). A tool integration workbench for enterprise architecture. Proceedings 6th international conference on enterprise information systems. Porto, Portugal.
29. López-Grao, J.P., Merseguer J., & Campos, J. (2004). From UML activity diagrams to Stochastic Petri Nets: Application to software performance engineering. ACM SIGSOFT software engineering notes, 29 (1).
30. Lung, C.-H., Jalnapurkar, A., & El-Rayess A. (1998). Performance-oriented software architecture analysis: An experience report. Proceedings first international workshop on software and performance. Santa Fe, NM.
31. Miller, J., & Mukerji J. (Eds.) (2003). MDA guide (version 1.0.1). Object Management Group.
32. Object Management Group. (2003) UML Profile for schedulability, performance and time specification (version 1.0).
33. Object Management Group. (2004). UML profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms.
34. Pooley, R., (1999), Using UML to derive Stochastic Process Algebra models. In N. Davies, & J. Bradley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th UK performance engineering workshop (pp. 23-33). Bristol, UK.
35. Scheer, A.-W. (1994). Business process engineering: Reference models for industrial enterprises. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
36. Schomig, A., & Rau, H. (1995). A Petri net approach for the performance analysis of business processes. Würzburg, Germany: Universität Würzburg, Lehrstuhl ftir Informatik III (technical report 116).
37. Scoff, K. (2004). Fast track UML 2.0. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
38. Skene, J., & Emmerich, W. (2003a). Model driven performance analysis ofenterprise information systems. Electronic Notes In Theoretical Computer Science, 82(6).
39. Skene, J., & Emmerich, W. (2003b). A model driven architecture approach to non-fanctional analysis of software architectures. Proceedings 18th IEEE conference on automated software engineering. Toronto.
40. Smith, C. (1990). Performance engineering of sofware systems. New York: Addison-Wesley.
41. Smith, C.U., & Williams, L.G. (2000). Performance and scalability of distributed software architectures:An SPE approach. Parallel and Distributed Computing Practices, 3 (4).
42. Soley, R., & the OMG Staff Strategy Group (2000). Model Driven Architecture. Object Management Group White Paper, Draft 3.2.
43. Sowa, J.F., & Zachman, J.A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architectures IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 590-616.
44. Spitznagel, B., & Garlan, D. (1998). Architecture-based performance analysis. In Proceedings 1998 conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering. San Francisco Bay, CA.
45. Steen, M.W.A.,Akehurst,D.H., Doest, H.W.L. ter, & Lankhorst, M.M. (2004). Supporting viewpoint-oriented enterprise architecture. Proceedings 8th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (pp. 201-211). Monterey, CA.
46. Thatte, S. (Ed.). (2002). Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (version 1.1).