Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:07:47.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kuaba approach: Integrating formal semantics and design rationale representation to support design reuse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2008

Adriana Pereira de Medeiros  and
Daniel Schwabe
Adriana Pereira de Medeiros
Affiliation:
TecWeb Lab, Department of Informatics, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Daniel Schwabe
Affiliation:
TecWeb Lab, Department of Informatics, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents Kuaba, a new design rationale representation approach that enables employing design rationale to support reuse of model-based designs, particularly, software design. It is shown that this can be achieved through the adoption of an appropriate vocabulary that allows design rationale representations to be computationally processed. The architecture and implementation of an integrated design environment to support recording design rationale using Kuaba is also shown. The Kuaba approach integrates the design rationale representation model with the formal semantics provided by the metamodel of the design method or modeling language used for describing the artifact being designed. This integration makes the design rationale representations more specific according to the design methods and enables a type of software design reuse at the highest abstraction level, where rationales can be integrated and reemployed in designing a new artifact.

Keywords

Design Rationale ProcessingDesign ReuseDesign MetaModelIntegrated Support SystemsOntology
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 22 , Issue 4: Design Rationale , November 2008 , pp. 399 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bracewell, R.H., Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2004). DRed and design folders: a way of capturing, storing and passing on knowledge generated during design projects. Design Automation Conf., ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf.Salt Lake City, UT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, J., & Brown, D.C. (2004). An integrated approach for software design checking using rationale. Design Computing and Cognition, pp. 557–576. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham, S.S., & Sierhuis, M. (2003). Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. Proc. LAP'03: 8th Int. Working Conf. Language-Action Perspective on Communication ModellingTilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information processing theory: the design problem space. AI Magazine 10, 19–36.Google Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, E.W. (1996). Design Science: Introduction to Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge, 2nd ed.London: Springer–Verlag London Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The Unified Software Development Process. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Kifer, M., & Lausen, G. (1989). F-Logic: a higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance and scheme. ACM SIGMOD, pp. 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, W., & Rittel, H.W.J. (1970). Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper 131. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.Google Scholar
Lacaze, X. (2005). Conception rationalisée pour les systèmes interactifs—une notation semi formelle et un environnement d'édition pour une modélisation des alternatives de conception. PhD Thesis. Université Toulouse I.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1991). Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, pp. 114–125, Austin, TX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (1997). Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert 12(13), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, F., & Schwabe, D. (2003). Application modeling for the semantic web. Proc. LA Web 2003, p. 93. Taiwan: IEEE-CS Press.Google Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Human–Computer Interaction 6(3–4), 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, A.P. (2006). Kuaba: an approach for representation of design rationale for the reuse of model-based designs. PhD. Thesis. PUC Rio de Janeiro, Department of Informatics.Google Scholar
Medeiros, A.P., Schwabe, D., & Feijó, B. (2005). Kuaba ontology: design rationale representation and reuse in model-based designs. In Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3716, pp. 241–255. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, N. (1986). Principles of Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan–Kaufman.Google Scholar
Noy, N.F., Sintek, M.; Decker, S., Crubézy, M., Fergerson, R.W., & Musen, M.A. (2001). Creating semantic web contents with Protégé-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, D.A., & Schwabe, D. (2006). Rapid prototyping of web applications combining domain specific languages and model driven design. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. World Wide Web, pp. 889–890. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
OMG. (2003). Unified Modeling Language Specification. Version 1.5.Google Scholar
Peña-Mora, F., & Vadhavkar, S. (1997). Augmenting design patterns with design rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 11(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C., & Bruns, G. (1988). Recording the reasons for design decisions. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, pp. 418–427, Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, D.R.G. (2007). Support for recording and using design rationale for web application design, Rio de Janeiro. Master's Dissertation. PUC Rio de Janeiro, Department of Informatics.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schwabe, D., & Rossi, G. (1998). An object-oriented approach to Web-based application design. Theory and Practice of Object Systems (TAPOS), 207–225.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing Design to Software. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar