Simon: Modeling and analysis of design space structures

20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 329-332

  Cai, Yuanfang ^a   Sullivan, Kevin J ^a  

^a University of Virginia   (United States)

Author keywords

Dependence; Design rule; Design structure matrix

Indexed keywords

COUPLING RELATION; DESIGN DECISIONS; DESIGN RULES; DESIGN SPACES; DESIGN STRUCTURE MATRICES; ECONOMIC VALUES; EVOLVABILITY; EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION; FORMAL MODEL; INFORMATION HIDING; KEY FACTORS; MODELING AND ANALYSIS; PROTOTYPE SOFTWARE; REPLICATION STUDY; RIGOROUS VALIDATION;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING; SPACE PLATFORMS;

DESIGN;

EID: 73349085632     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1101908.1101962     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. R. Arnold and S. Bohner. Software Change Impact Analysis. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Pr, first edition, 1996.
2. C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. The MIT Press, 2000.
3. D. Batory and S. O'Malley. The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1 (4):355-398, 1992.
4. Y. Cai and K. Sullivan. Simon: A tool for logical design space modeling and analysis. In 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Long Beach, California, USA, Nov. 2005.
5. S. D. Eppinger. Model-based approaches to managing concurrent engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 2 (4):283-290, 1991.
6. M. S. Feather. Risk reduction using ddp (defect detection and prevention): Software support and software applications. In RE, page 288, 2001.
7. D. Garlan and D. Notkin. Formalizing design spaces: Implicit invocation mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium of VDM Europe on Formal Software Development-Volume I, pages 31-44. Springer-Verlag, 1991.
8. D. Jackson. Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11 (2):256-290, 2002. (Pubitemid 44159313)
9. T. G. Lane. Studying software architecture through design spaces and rules. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-18, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.
10. V. Lopes and S. K. Bajracharya. An analysis of modularity in aspect oriented design. In AOSD '05, pages 15-26, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
11. A. MacCormack, J. Rusnak, and C. Baldwin. Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Harvard Business School Working Paper Number 05-016.
12. A. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. In Artificial Intelligence, 8, pages 99-118, 1977.
13. D. L. Parnas. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15 (12):1053-8, Dec. 1972.
14. N. Sangal, E. Jordan, V. Sinha, and D. Jackson. Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture. In OOPLSA, 2005.
15. H. A. Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, third edition, 1996.
16. M. Sinnema, S. Deelstra, J. Nijhuis, and J. Bosch. Covamof: A framework for modeling variability in software product families. In Proceedings of SPLC 2004, volume 3154, pages 197-213, August: 2004.
17. D. V. Steward. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 28 (3):71-84, 1981.
18. K. Sullivan, Y. Cai, B. Hallen, and W. G. Griswold. The structure and value of modularity in software design. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 26 (5):99-108, Sept. 2001.
19. K. Sullivan, W. Griswold, Y. Song, and Y. C. et al. Information hiding interfaces for aspect-oriented design. In ESEC/FSE '05, Sept 2005.