On the Systematic Conformance Check of Software Artefacts

  • Hylke W. van Dijk
  • Bas Graaf
  • Rob Boerman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3527)


In this paper we present a systematic check of the conformance of the implemented and the intended software architecture. Nowadays industry is confronted with rapidly evolving embedded systems. In order to effectively reuse design artefacts such as requirements, architectural views and analysis, as well as the code base, it is important to have a consistent overview in each phase of the development process. In this paper we propose a conformance check framework that combines a colloquial engineering model and a conformance check system based on commodity technology, albeit the model and the system can be used in their own right. An academic experiment exemplifies the application of our framework.


Software Architecture Engineering Model Architecture Domain Software Artefact Development View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    MOOSE: software engineering MethOdOlogieS for Embedded systems (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MERLIN: Embedded systems engineering in collaboration (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graaf, B., Lormans, M., Toetenel, H.: Embedded software engineering: state of the practice. IEEE Software 20, 61–69 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE-1471: IEEE recommended practice for architectural description of software intensive systems. IEEE Std 1471–2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Deursen, A., Hofmeister, C., Koschke, R., Moonen, L., Riva, C.: Symphony: View-driven software architecture reconstruction. In: Proc. IEEE/IFIP Working Conf. on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), pp. 122–134 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kruchten, P.B.: The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software 12, 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures:Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IABG: Das v-modell: Vorgehensmodell zur planung und durchführung von it-vorhaben (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy, G.C., Notkin, D., Sullivan, K.: Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models. In: SIGSOFT 1995: Proc. of the Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 18–28 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevens, P.: On associations in the unified modelling language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 361. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R.T., Wile, D.: ACME: architectural description of component-based systems. In: Foundations of component-based systems, pp. 47–67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D.S., Redmiles, D.F., Robbins, J.E.: Modeling software architectures in the unified modeling language. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11, 2–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garlan, D., Cheng, S.W., Kompanek, A.J.: Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notations. Science of Computer Programming 44, 23–49 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greg, J.B.: JavaML - an XML-based source code representation for Java programs (2000),
  16. 16.
    Al-Ekram, R., Kontogiannis, K.: An XML-based framework for language neutral program representation and generic analysis. In: Proc. of the European Conf. on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2005), pp. 42–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nentwich, C., Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: Xlinkit: a consistency checking and smart link generation service. ACM Trans. Inter. Tech. 2, 151–185 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michael Marconi, C.N.: Clix language specification version 1.0 (2004)
  19. 19.
    Nentwich, C., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A., Ellmer, E.: Flexible consistency checking. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 12, 28–63 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dobrica, L., Niemelä, E.: A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on software Engineering 28, 638–653 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laitenberger, O., DeBaud, J.M.: An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection. Journal System and Software 50, 5–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krikhaar, R.L.: Software architecture Reconstruction. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mens, K.: Automating Architectural Conformance Checking by means of Logic Meta Programming. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, I.J., Hylands, C., Janneck, J., Lee, E.A., et al.: Overview of the ptolemy project. Technical Report UCB/ERL M01/11, University of California (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ArchJava: Home. (2005)
  26. 26.
    OMG: MDA (2005),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hylke W. van Dijk
    • 1
  • Bas Graaf
    • 1
  • Rob Boerman
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Technology (EEMCS)Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations