dc.contributor.author |
Tang, Antony |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Avgeriou, Paris |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Jansen, Anton |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Capilla, Rafael |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Ali Babar, Muhammad |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2012-03-20T10:03:40Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2012-03-20T10:03:40Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2009 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10344/2101 |
|
dc.description |
peer-reviewed |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
Recent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description. Different approaches have emerged to support such
architectural knowledge (AK) management activities. However, there are different notions of and emphasis on what and how architectural activities should be supported. This is reflected in the design and implementation of existing AK tools. To understand the current status of software architecture knowledge engineering and future research trends, this paper compares five architectural knowledge management
tools and the support they provide in the architecture life-cycle. The comparison is based on an evaluation framework defined by a set of 10 criteria. The results of the comparison provide insights into the current focus of architectural knowledge management support, their advantages, deficiencies, and
conformance to the current architectural description standard. Based on the outcome of this comparison a research agenda is proposed for future work on AK tools. |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
eng |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Elsevier |
en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Journal of Systems and Software Maintenance and Evolution;83(3),pp. 352-370 |
|
dc.relation.uri |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032 |
|
dc.rights |
This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Systems and Software Maintenance. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Systems and Software Maintenance 83(3), pp. 352-370 |
en_US |
dc.subject |
architectural knowledge management tool |
en_US |
dc.subject |
architectural design |
en_US |
dc.subject |
design rationale |
en_US |
dc.title |
A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |
dc.type.supercollection |
all_ul_research |
en_US |
dc.type.supercollection |
ul_published_reviewed |
en_US |
dc.type.restriction |
none |
en |
dc.contributor.sponsor |
SFI |
|