Toward Architecture Evaluation through Ontology-Based Requirements-Level Scenarios

  • Mamadou H. Diallo
  • Leila Naslavsky
  • Thomas A. Alspaugh
  • Hadar Ziv
  • Debra J. Richardson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5135)


We describe an approach for evaluating whether a candidate architecture dependably satisfies stakeholder requirements expressed in requirements-level scenarios. We map scenarios to architectural elements through an ontology of requirements-level event classes and domain entities. The scenarios express both functional requirements and quality attributes of the system; for quality attributes, the scenarios either operationalize the quality or show how the quality can be verified. Our approach provides a connection between requirements a stakeholder can understand directly, and architectures developed to satisfy those requirements. The requirements-level ontology simplifies the mapping, acts as the focus for maintaining the mapping as both scenarios and architecture evolve, and provides a foundation for evaluating scenarios and architecture individually and jointly. In this paper, we focus on the mapping through event classes and demonstrate our approach with two examples.


Quality Attribute Event Type Software Architecture Current Price Domain Class 
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.
    Alspaugh, T.A.: Relationships between scenarios. Technical Report UCI-ISR-06-7, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine (May 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alspaugh, T.A., Sim, S.E., Winbladh, K., Diallo, M., Ziv, H., Richardson, D.J.: The importance of clarity in usable requirements specification formats. In: 5th Intl. Wkp. on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babar, M.A., Gorton, I.: Comparison of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods. In: APSEC, pp. 600–607. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbacci, M.R., Carriere, S.J., Feiler, P.H., Kazman, R., Klein, M.H., Lipson, H.F., Longstaff, T.A., Weinstock, C.B.: Steps in an architecture tradeoff analysis method: Quality attribute models and analysis. Technical Report CMU/SEI-97-TR-029, Software Eng. Inst. (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barber, K.S., Holt, J.: Software architecture correctness. IEEE Software 18(6), 64–65 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechhofer, S., Harmelen, F.v., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL web ontology language reference. Technical report, W3C (2004),
  7. 7.
    Bengtsson, P., Lassing, N., Bosch, J., van Vliet, H.: Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). J. Syst. Softw. 69(1-2), 129–147 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5) (May 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertolino, A.B.: A practical approach to UML-based derivation of integration tests. In: 4th International Software Quality Week Europe and International Internet Quality Week Europe (QWE 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breitman, K.K., Filho, A.H., Haeusler, E.H., von Staa, A.: Using ontologies to formalize services specifications in multi-agent systems. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3228, pp. 92–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breitman, K.K., Leite, J.C.S.d.P.: Ontology as a requirements engineering product. In: 11th IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2003), pp. 309–319 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dashofy, E.M., Hoek, A.v.d., Taylor, R.N.: A highly-extensible, XML-based architecture description language. In: Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2001), p. 103 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diallo, M.H., Sim, S.E., Alspaugh, T.A.: Case study, interrupted: The paucity of subject systems that span the requirements-architecture gap. In: First Workshop on Empirical Assessment of Software Engineering Languages and Technologies (WEASELTech 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dick, J.: Rich traceability. In: International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Edinburgh, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Folmer, E., Gurp, J.v., Bosch, J.: Scenario-based assessment of software architecture usability. In: ICSE Workshop on Bridging the Gaps Between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 61–68 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox, C.: Introduction to Software Engineering Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R.T., Wile, D.: Acme: An architecture description interchange language. In: CASCON 1997, pp. 169–183 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A., Medvidovic, N.: Reconciling software requirements and architectures with intermediate models. Software and System Modeling 3(3), 235–253 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoek, A.v.d., Rakic, M., Roshandel, R., Medvidovic, N.: Taming architectural evolution. In: Joint 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 9th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE) (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    In, H., Kazman, R., Olson, D.: From requirements negotiation to software architectural decisions. In: 1st Intl. Workshop on From Software Requirements to Architectures (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jalote, P.: An Integrated Approach to Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Ontology based requirements analysis: Lightweight semantic processing approach. In: 5th Int. Conf. on Quality Software (QSIC), pp. 223–230 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazman, R., Abowd, G.D., Bass, L.J., Clements, P.C.: Scenario-based analysis of software architecture. IEEE Software 13(6), 47–55 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, Soft. Eng. Institute (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naslavsky, L., Xu, L., Dias, M., Ziv, H., Richardson, D.J.: Extending xADL with statechart behavioral specification. In: Third Workshop on Architecting Dependable Systems (WADS), Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 22–26 (May 2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmerl, B., Garlan, D.: AcmeStudio: Supporting style-centered architecture development. In: 26th Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng (ICSE 2004), pp. 704–705 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suryanarayana, G., Diallo, M.H., Erenkrantz, J.R., Taylor, R.N.: Architectural support for trust models in decentralized applications. In: 28th Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng (ICSE 2006), pp. 52–61 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor, R.N., Medvidovic, N., Anderson, K.M., Whitehead Jr., E.J., Robbins, J.E.: A component- and message-based architectural style for GUI software. In: 17th Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng (ICSE 1995), pp. 295–304 (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Detecting implied scenarios in message sequence chart specifications. In: Joint 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 9th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 74–82 (September 2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu, L., Ziv, H., Alspaugh, T.A., Richardson, D.J.: An architectural pattern for non-functional dependability requirements. Journal of Systems and Software 79(10), 1370–1378 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhu, X., Maiden, N., Pavan, P.: Scenarios: Bringing requirements and architectures together. In: 2nd Intl. Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mamadou H. Diallo
    • 1
  • Leila Naslavsky
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Alspaugh
    • 1
  • Hadar Ziv
    • 1
  • Debra J. Richardson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics Donald Bren School of Information and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvine

Personalised recommendations