On the similarity between requirements and architecture

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 544-550

  de Boer, Remco C ^a   van Vliet, Hans ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Architectural knowledge; Requirements; Software architecture

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS; ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE; INTRINSIC RELATIONS; PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS; REQUIREMENTS; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 61349110036     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.11.185     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ali Babar, M., de Boer, R.C., Dingsøyr, T., Farenhorst, R., 2007. Architectural knowledge management strategies: approaches in research and industry. In: Second Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge - Architecture rationale and Design Intent (SHARK-ADI), Minneapolis, MN, USA.
2. Bass L., Clements P., and Kazman R. Software architecture in practice. second ed. SEI Series in Software Engineering (2003), Addison-Wesley Pearson Education, Boston
3. Bengtsson P., Lassing N., Bosch J., and van Vliet H. Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). Journal of Systems and Software 69 1-2 (2004) 129-147
4. Chung, L., Gross, D., Yu, E., 1999. Architectural design to meet stakeholder requirements. In: Donohoe, P. (Ed.), First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), pp. 545-564.
5. Dahlstedt Å.G., and Persson A. Requirements interdependencies: state of the art and future challenges. In: Aurum A., and Wohlin C. (Eds). Engineering and Managing Software Requirements (2005), Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 95-116
6. de Boer, R. C., Farenhorst, R., 2008. In search of 'architectural knowledge'. In: Third Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge (SHARK), Leipzig, Germany.
7. de Boer, R.C., Farenhorst, R., Lago, P., van Vliet, H., Clerc, V., Jansen, A., 2007. Architectural knowledge: getting to the core. In: Third International Conference on Quality of Software-Architectures (QoSA), vol. 4880 of LNCS. Springer.
8. Hofmeister C., Kruchten P., Nord R.L., Obbink H., Ran A., and America P. A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. Journal of Systems and Software 80 1 (2007) 106-126
9. Holyoak K.J., and Simon D. Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128 1 (1999) 3-31
10. Jackson M. Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems (2001), ACM Press Books, Addison-Wesley
11. Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Carrièrre, S.J., Woods, S.G., 1999. Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis. In: Twenty-first International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Los Angeles, CA, United States, pp. 54-63.
12. Kazman, R., Bass, L., Webb, M., Abowd, G., 1994. SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In: Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Sorrento, Italy, pp. 81-90.
13. Kozaczynski, W., 2002. Requirements, architectures and risks. In: Tenth Anniversary Joint IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), p. 6.
14. Kruchten, P., 2004. An ontology of architectural design decisions in software-intensive systems. In: Second Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management, Groningen, NL.
15. Medvidovic N., Grünbacher P., Egyed A., and Boehm B.W. Bridging models across the software lifecycle. Journal of Systems and Software 68 3 (2003) 199-215
16. Nuseibeh B. Weaving together requirements and architectures. IEEE Computer 34 3 (2001) 115-117
17. Parnas D.L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15 12 (1972) 1053-1058
18. Poort, E.R., de With, P.H., 2004. Resolving requirement conflicts through non-functional decomposition. In: Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), IEEE Computer Society, p. 145.
19. Rapanotti, L., Hall, J.G., Jackson, M., Nuseibeh, B., 2004. Architecture-driven problem decomposition. In: Twelfth IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 80-89.
20. Roeller R., Lago P., and van Vliet H. Recovering architectural assumptions. Journal of Systems and Software 79 4 (2006) 552-573
21. Rolland C., and Salinesi C. Modeling goals and reasoning with them. In: Aurum A., and Wohlin C. (Eds). Engineering and Managing Software Requirements (2005), Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 189-217
22. Savolainen, J., Kuusela, J., 2002. Framework for goal driven system design. In: Twenty-sixth Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, p. 749.
23. Shekaran, C., Garlan, D., Jackson, M., Mead, N.R., Potts, C., Reubenstein, H.B., 1994. The role of software architecture in requirements engineering. In: First International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE), pp. 239-245.
24. Swartout W., and Balzer R. On the inevitable intertwining of specification and implementation. Communications of the ACM 25 7 (1982) 438-440
25. van Lamsweerde, A., 2001. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE). pp. 249-263.
26. van Lamsweerde A. From system goals to software architecture. In: Bernardo M., and Inverardi P. (Eds). Formal Methods for Software Architectures vol. 2804 of LNCS (2003), Springer-Verlag 25-43
27. Yu, E.S.K., 1997. Towards modeling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Third IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), pp. 226-235.