Mapping a Domain Model and Architecture to a Generic Design

Peterson, Abigayle; Stanley, Jay L

doi:10.21236/ada283747

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, 32 of those 58 ALs that are shown in Table 8 support the development viewpoint and allow for generating software code from the concurrent behavior specifications. 168,169 Modechart, 65,66 MetaH, 31 OCA, 170,171 UNAS/SALE, 72 Cham-ADL, 136 Darwin, 11,12 UML 172 1990-1995 ASDL, 138,139 Rapide, 13 Jacal, 125 Polis, 144,145 Wright, 10 DADL, 63 Leda, 44 PADL, 146 π-Space 82 1996-2000 ABC/ADL, 173 AEmilia, 83 Pilar, 121 SADL, 68 Community, 86,87 DAOP-ADL, 88 Korrigan, 89 AADL, 14,15 COSA, 62 ADLARS, 93 East-ADL, 32 CBabel, 58,59 Clara, 60 π-net ADL, 17 SafArchie, 94 AO-Rapide 49 2001-2005 EAADL, 96 Fractal, 46,47 Little-JIL, 174 KADL, 39 Prisma, 28,…”

Section: Multiple Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Release Years SARA 53 1986 STATEMATE, 168,169 Kaptur, 188,189 Modechart, 65,66 Aesop, 190 1990-1994 Artek, 76 OCA, 170,171 Resolve, 131 UNAS/SALE, 72 MetaH 31 Acme, 35,36 C2SADEL, 41 Darwin, 11,12 UML, 172 UniCon, 77 1995-1999 Gestalt, 191 Rapide, 13 Room, 192 DADL, 63 Jacal, 125 Polis, 144,145 Wright, 10 C2SADEL, 41 GenVoca, 149 Leda, 44 UniCon 77 Korrigan, 38 AADL, 14,15 HappyWork, 180 Mae, 90 π-ADL, 91 2000-2004 XC2, 42 ABC/ADL, 173 Knit, 193 Koala 16 ABACUS, 56 ArchiMate, 181,182 Cbabel, 58,59 Clara, 60 2005 Con Moto, 61 East-ADL, 32 FuseJ, 178 SafArchie, 94 XADL 33…”

Section: Architectural Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The analysis of architectural languages for the needs of practitioners

Özkaya

2018

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Architectural languages (ALs) have attracted much attention as the modeling notations for specifying and reasoning about important design decisions. In this study, 124 different existing ALs have been analyzed for a set of requirements that are crucial for practitioners. These requirements are concerned with language definition, language features, and tool support. Some of the important findings obtained from the analysis are as follows: (1) performance is the top popular nonfunctional requirement supported by ALs; (2) no ALs offer both textual and visual notation sets, one of which could be used independently; (3) process algebras are the top preferred formal method by formal ALs; (4) the physical, deployment, and operational viewpoints are rarely supported by ALs; (5) the top preferred extension mechanism of the extensible ALs is XML for syntax extension; (6) Java is the top preferred programming language in generating software code; (7) the exhaustive model checking is the top preferred automated analysis method; (8) the logic‐based formal techniques are so popular in specifying system requirements; (9) among the analysis properties considered, consistency is the top supported property for the automated checking; and (10) most ALs do not provide any discussion platform (eg, forums). Hence, these findings can be used by the new AL developers in addressing the needs of practitioners and bridging the gaps in the field. Practitioners can also use the findings to find out about the existing ALs and compare them to choose the one(s) that suits their needs best.

show abstract

Section: Multiple Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Architectural Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The analysis of architectural languages for the needs of practitioners

Özkaya

2018

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is easier to keep consistency and completeness of information with a structured design approach. In this work, coupling and cohesion criteria (Peterson and Stanley, 1994) have been considered for mapping functional requirements into components. Moreover, for domain systems, a reference architecture represents a domain specific way of structuring software systems through decomposing the problems into parts and their relationships , and mapping the decomposition results onto software units and their interactions.…”

Section: Designing Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Generic Software Architecture for a Service Robot Controller

Álvarez

Ortiz

Martínez

et al. 2002

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embedded computer control systems rely on software for performing their functions. These systems are essentially real-time systems and traditionally the research on these systems has been focused on functionality and performance. However, quality attributes as modifiability, portability, etc. are very important for developing high quality computer control software. One way of rising high quality is based on the study of software architectures. In this work, we present the followed process to obtain a reference architecture of a robot controller for a teleoperated service robot. To achieve this goal, we have followed an architecture-based development process using UML, a standard notation for the design of static and dynamic properties of systems. Copyrigh © 2002 IFAC.

show abstract

“…There are many studies that describe how to perform a domain analysis, however these do not explain how to use the results of such an analysis to obtain a generic design. The approach described in Peterson & Stanley (1994) was used. It groups the elements that work together for performing a certain task in subsystems.…”

Section: Domain Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%