Four Reasoning Models for C3 Metamodel
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)
The architecture is considered to be the driving aspect of the development process; it allows specifying which aspects and models in each level needed according to the software architecture design. Early Architecture Description Languages (ADLs), nearly exclusive, focus on structural abstraction hierarchy ignoring behavioural description hierarchy, conceptual hierarchy, and metamodeling hierarchy. In our approach these four hierarchies constitute views to appropriately “reason about” the architecture of a system described using our C3 metamodel. C3 is defined to be a minimal and complete architecture description language. In this paper we provide a set of mechanisms to deal with different levels of each type of hierarchy, also we introduce our proper structural definition for connector types used to instantiate any connexion elements deployed at the architectures and application levels.
Copyright © 2017 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.
N. Medvidovic, E. Dashofy, R. N. Taylor, Moving Architectural Description from Under the Technology Lamppost, Information and Software Technology. Vol. 49, n. 1, pp. 12-31, 2007.
R. N. Taylor, N. Medvidovic, , K. M. Anderson, E. J. Whitehead, J. E. Robbins, K. A. Nies, P. Oreizy, D. L. Dubrow, A Component- and Message-based Architectural Style for GUI Software, IEEE Transaction Software Engineering, Vol. 22, n. 6, pp. 390–406, 1996.
J. E. Pérez-Martínez, Heavyweight Extensions to the UML Metamodel to Describe the C3 Architectural Style, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 28, n. 3, pp. 5-15, 2003.
A. Smeda, M. Oussalah, T. Khammaci, Improving Component-Based Software Architecture by Separating Computations from Interactions, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Coordination and Adaptation Techniques for Software Entities, WCAT'04 held in conjunction with ECOOP, Oslo, Norway, June 2004.
A. Amirat, M. Oussalah, T. Khammaci, Towards an Approach for Building Reliable Architectures, Proceedings of IEEE Information Reuse and Integration (IRI’07), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Pages 467-472, August 2007.
M. Oussalah, A. Amirat, T. Khammaci, Software Architecture Based Connection Manager, Proceedings of Software Engineering and Data Engineering (SEDE’07), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Pages 194-199, July 2007.
J. Matevska-Meyer, W. Hasselbring, R. Reussner, Software Architecture Description Supporting Component Deployment and System Runtime Reconfiguration, Proceedings of Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming WCOP 2004, Oslo, Norway, June 2004.
M. Pinto, L. Fluentes, M. Troya, A Dynamic Component and Aspect-Oriented Platform, The Computer Journal, Vol.48, n. 4, pp. 401-420, 2005.
D. Garlan, R. T. Monroe, D. Wile, Acme: Architectural Description Component-Based Systems, Foundations of Component-Based Systems, Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-68, 2000.
A. Lanoix, D. Hatebur, M. Heisel, J. Souquières, Enhancing Dependability of Component-Based Systems, Proceedings of Ada-Europe, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-73229-7 pp. 41-54, 2007.
OMG: Unified Modeling Superstructure [Electronic Version] from http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-04-02.pdf, 2006.
OMG: Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure [Electronic Version] from http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-02-06.pdf, 2007.
A. Smeda, M. Oussalah, T. Khammaci, MADL: Meta Architecture Description Language, Proceedings of the 3rd ICIS International conference on Software Engineering Research, Management & Applications, SERA’05, Pleasant, Michigan, USA, Pages 152-159, August 2005.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Please send any question about this web site to email@example.com
Copyright © 2005-2020 Praise Worthy Prize