Evaluating Alternative COTS Assemblies from Imperfect Component Information

  • Hernán Astudillo
  • Javier Pereira
  • Claudia López
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4214)


Component-based approaches to elaborate software must deal with the fact that in practical settings, components information may be incomplete, imprecise and uncertain, and requirements may be likewise. Architects wanting to evaluate candidate architectures regarding requirements satisfaction need to use whatever information be available about components, however imperfect. Imperfect information can be dealt with using specialized analytical formalisms, such as fuzzy values for imprecision and rough sets for incompleteness; but if used, evaluations need to compare and rank using non-scalar, non-symbolic values. This article presents an approach to systematically describe components’ imperfect information, and to evaluate and rank whole component assemblies, by using credibility values-based “support scores” that aggregate imperfect information about requirements, mechanisms and components. The approach builds on the Azimut framework, which offers progressive refinement of architectural entities via architectural policies, architectural mechanisms, components, and component assemblies. An example of the proposed approach and “what-if” analysis are illustrated.


Imperfect Information Credibility Level Component Information Support Score Component Assembly 
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.
    Astudillo, H., Pereira, J., López, C.: Identifying “Interesting” Component Assemblies for NFRs Using Imperfect Information. In: Gruhn, V., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4344, pp. 204–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, C., Castro, J.: CRE: A Systematic Method for COTS Components Selection. In: 15th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alves, C., Finkelstein, A.: Challenges in COTS-Making: a Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering Perspective. In: Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. on SEKE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Britton, C., Bye, P.: IT Architectures and Middleware: Strategies for Building Large, Integrated Systems, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao, F., Bryant, B., Raje, R., Auguston, M., Olson, A., Burt, C.: A Component Assembly Approach Based on Aspect-Oriented Generative Domain Modeling. In: ENTCS 2005, pp. 119–136 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung, L., Cooper, K.: COTS-Aware Requirements Engineering and Software Architecting. In: Procs. IWSSA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Firesmith, D.: Specifying Reusable Security Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 3(1), 61–75 (2004), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gokhale, A., Balasubramanian, K., Lu, T.: CoSMIC: Addressing Crosscutting Deployment and Configuration Concerns of Distributed Real-Time and Embedded Systems. In: Procs. OOPSLA 2004, pp. 218–219. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kontio, J.: A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. In: Procs. ICSE 1996, pp. 201–209 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kunda, D., Brooks, L.: Applying Social-Technical Approach to COTS Selection. In: Procs. 4th UKAIS Conference (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    López, C., Astudillo, H.: Explicit Architectural Policies to Satisfy NFRs Using COTS. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 227–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    López, C., Astudillo, H.: Multidimensional Catalogs for Systematic Exploration of Component-Based Design Spaces. In: First International Workshop on Advanced Software Engineering (IWASE 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ncube, C., Maiden, N.: PORE: Procurement-Oriented Requirements Engineering Method for the CBSE Development Paradigm. In: International Workshop on CBSE (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ochs, M.: A COTS Acquisition Process: Definition and Application Experience. In: Procs. 11th ESCOM Conference, Shaker, Maastricht (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1 (2003),
  17. 17.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pomerol, J.C., Barba-Romero, S.: Multicriterion Decision in Management - Principles and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Philips, B., Polen, S.: Add Decision Analysis to Your COTS Selection Process. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Software Technology Support Center Crosstalk (April 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roy, B., McCord, M.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaw, M.: Truth vs Knowledge: The Difference Between What a Component Does and What We Know It Does. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD 1996), pp. 181–185. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tannenbaum, A., van Steen, M.: Distributed Systems Principles and Paradigms. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information & Control 8, 338–353 (1965)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R.: Operations Management, 4th edn. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Policy and Mechanism Definitions,
  28. 28.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hernán Astudillo
    • 1
  • Javier Pereira
    • 2
  • Claudia López
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile
  2. 2.Escuela de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations