Specifying the Global Execution Context of Computer-Mediated Tasks: A Visual Notation and a Supporting Tool

Demosthenes Akoumianakis

Department of Applied Informatics & Multimedia, School of Applied Technologies, Advanced Technological Education Institution of Crete, Crete, Greece..

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2010.34037                

Abstract

This paper presents the notion of the global execution context of a task as a representational construct for analysing complexity in software evolution. Based on this notion a visual notation and a supporting tool are presented to support specification of a system’s global execution context. A system’s global execution context is conceived as an evolving network of use scenarios depicted by nodes and links designating semantic relationships between scenarios. A node represents either a base or a growth scenario. Directed links characterize the transition from one node to another by means of semantic scenario relationships. Each growth scenario is generated following a critique (or screening) of one or more base or reference scenarios. Subsequently, representative growth scenarios are compiled and consolidated in the global execution context graph. The paper describes the stages of this process, presents the tool designed to facilitate the construction of the global execution context graph and elaborates on recent practice and experience.

Keywords

Non-Functional Requirements, Software Evolution Artifacts, Global Execution Context, Tools

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	D. R. Olsen, “Interacting in Chaos,” Interactions, Vol. 6, No. 5, September-October 1999, pp. 42-54.
[2]	S. S. Anand, P. Kearney and M. Shapcott, “Generating Semantically Enriched User Profiles for Web Personali-zation,” ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 2007.
[3]	E. Yu, “Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering,” Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’97), IEEE Computer Society, New York, 1997, pp. 226-235.
[4]	H. Solheim, F. Lillehagen, S. A. Petersen, H. Jorgensen and M. Anastasiou, “Model-Driven Visual Requirements Engineering,” The Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Interna-tional Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, New York, 2005, pp. 421-425.
[5]	K. Cooper, S. P. Abraham, R. S. Unnithan, L. Chung and S. Courtney, “Integrating Visual Goal Models into the Rational Unified Process,” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 17, 2006, pp. 551-583.
[6]	M. E. Dashofy, A. Van der Hoek and N. R. Taylor, “A Comprehensive Approach for the Development of Mod-ular Software Architecture Description Languages,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2005, pp. 199-245.
[7]	J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung and B. Nixon, “Representing and Using Non-Functional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1992, pp. 483-497.
[8]	L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu and J. Mylopoulos, “Non- Functional Requirements in Software Engineering,” Kluw-er Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999.
[9]	P. Finger, “Component-Based Frameworks for E-Com- merce,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 10, 2000, pp. 61-66.
[10]	M. M. Lehman and J. F. Ramil, “Software Evolution and Software Evolution Processes,” Annals of Software En-gineering, Vol. 14, No. 1-4, 2002, pp. 275-309.
[11]	D. Thomas, “Agile Programming: Design to Accommo-date Change,” IEEE Software, Vol. 22, No.3, 2005, pp. 14-16.
[12]	K. Beck, “Embracing Change with Extreme Program-ming,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 32, No. 10, 1999, pp. 70-77.
[13]	E. M. Shina and H. Gomaab, “Software Requirements and Architecture Modeling for Evolving Non-Secure Ap-plications into Secure Applications,” Science of Computer Programming, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2007, pp. 60-70.
[14]	L. Naslavsky, A. T. Alspaugh, J. D. Richardson and H. Ziv, “Using Scenarios to Support Traceability,” Proceed-ings of the 3rd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, ACM Press, New York, 2005, pp. 25-30.
[15]	J. Cleland-Huang and K. C. Chang, “Event-Based Tra-ceability for Managing Evolutionary Change,” IEEE Trans- actions on Software Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2003, pp. 796-810.
[16]	V. Rajlich, “Modeling Software Evolution by Evolving Interoperation Graphs,” Annals of Software Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1-4, May 2000, pp. 235-248.
[17]	K. K. Breitman, J. C. S. P. Leite and M. D. Berry, “Sup-porting Scenario Evolution,” Requirements Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 112-131.
[18]	D. B. Petriu, D. Amyot, M. Woodside and B. Jiang, “Traceability and Evaluation in Scenario Analysis by Use Case Maps,” In: S. Leue and T. J. Systa, Ed., Scenarios: Models, Transformations and Tools (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, Vol. 3466, 2005, pp. 134-151.
[19]	J. Hammer and M. Schneider, “The GenAlg Project: De-veloping a New Integrating Data Model, Language, and Tool for Managing and Querying Genomic Information,” SIGMOD Record, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004, pp. 45-50.
[20]	I. Jacobson, M. Christeron, P. Jonsson and G. Overgaard, “Object-Oriented Software Engineering – A Use Case Driven Approach,” Addison-Wesley, White Plains, 1992.
[21]	G. Avellis, “CASE Support for Software Evolution: A Dependency Approach to Control the Change Process,” Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Com-puter-Aided Software Engineering, IEEE Computer So-ciety, New York, 1992, pp. 62-73.
[22]	T. Mens and T. D’Hondt, “Automating Support for Soft-ware Evolution in UML,” Automated Software Engineer-ing, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2000, pp. 39-59.
[23]	T. Kosar, E. P. M. Lopez, A. P. Barrientos and M. Mernik, “A Preliminary Study on Various Implementation Ap-proaches of Domain-Specific Language,” Information and Software Technology, Vol. 50, No. 5, April 2008, pp. 390- 405.
[24]	J. Greenfield and K. Short, “Software Factories – Assem-bling Applications with Patterns, Frameworks, Models & Tools,” John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2004.
[25]	B. Myers, “User Interfaces Software Tools,” ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, pp. 64-103.
[26]	J. Heer, S. Card and J. Landay, “Prefuse: A Toolkit for Interactive Information Visualization,” Proceedings of ACM CHI, ACM Press, New York, 2005, pp. 421-430.
[27]	B. B. Bederson, J. Grosjean and J. Meyer, “Toolkit Design for Interactive Structured Graphics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 8, 2004, pp. 535-546.
[28]	E. Adar, “GUESS: A Language and Interface for Graph Exploration,” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, New York, 2006, pp. 791-800.
[29]	M. Barbacci, R. Ellison, A. Lattanze, J. Stafford, C. Weinstock and W. Wood, “Quality Attribute Workshops,” 2nd Edition, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, 2002. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/ documents/02.reports/pdf/02tr019.pdf
[30]	L. Bass, P. Clements and R. Kasman, “Software Archi-tecture in Practice,” Addison-Wesley, White Plains, 1998.
[31]	L. Chung and N. Subramanian, “Adaptable Architecture Generation for Embedded Systems,” The Journal of Sys-tems and Software, Vol. 71, No. 3, 2004, pp. 271-295.
[32]	G. Mori, F. Paternò and C. Santoro, “Design and Devel-opment of Multidevice User Interfaces through Multiple Logical Descriptions,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 8, 2004, pp. 507-520.
[33]	M. Salehie and L. Tahvildari, “Self-Adaptive Software: Landscape and Research Challenges,” ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2009.
[34]	M. Barbacci, M. Klein, T. Longstaff, C. Weinstocket, “Quality Attributes,” Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1995. http:// www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/95.reports/95. tr.021.html
[35]	E. Folmer and J. Bosch, “Architecting for Usability: A Survey,” Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 70, No. 1-2, 2004, pp. 61-78.
[36]	A. MacLean, V. Bellotti and S. Shum, “Developing the Design Space with Design Space Analysis,” In: P. F. Byerley, P. J. Barnard and J. May, Ed., Computers, Communication and Usability: Design Issues, Research and Methods for Integrated Services, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 197-219, 1993.
[37]	J. Lee and K.-Y. Lai, “What’s in Design Rationale?” In: T. P. Moran and J. M. Caroll, Ed., Design Rationale: Con-cepts, Techniques and Use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Malham, 1996.
[38]	J. S. Olson and T. P. Moran, “Mapping the Method Mud-dle: Guidance in Using Methods for User Interface De-sign,” In: M. Rudisill, C. Lewis, P. B. Polson and T. D. McKay, Ed., Human-Computer Interface Design: Success Stories, Emerging Methods, and Real-World Context, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 1996, pp. 101-121.
[39]	D. Akoumianakis, A. Savidis and C. Stephanidis, “En-capsulating Intelligent Interactive Behavior in Unified User Interface Artifacts,” Interacting with Computers, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, pp. 383-408.
[40]	J. C. S. P. Leite, J. H. Doorn, G. D. S. Hadad and G. N. Kaplan, “Scenario Inspections,” Requirements Engineering, Vol. 10, 2005, pp. 1-21.
[41]	K. Weidenhaupt, K. Pohl, M. Jarke and P. Haumer, “Scenarios in System Development: Current Practice,” IEEE Software, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, pp. 34-45.
[42]	C. Potts, K. Takahashi and A. Anton, “Inquiry–Based Requirements Analysis,” IEEE Software, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1994, pp. 21-32.
[43]	C. Rolland and C. B. Achour, “Guiding the Construction of Textual Use Case Specifications,” Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, 1998, pp. 125-160.
[44]	D. Akoumianakis and I. Pachoulakis, “Scenario networks: Specifying User Interfaces with Extended Use Cases,” In: P. Bozanis and E. N. Houstis, Ed., Advances in Informat-ics (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, Vol. 3746, 2006, pp. 491-501.
[45]	D. Akoumianakis, A. Katsis and N. Bidakis, “Non-func- tional User Interface Requirements Notation (NfRn) for Modeling the Global Execution Context of Tasks,” In: K. Coninx, K. Luyten and K. A. Schneider, Ed., Task Models and Diagrams for Users Interface Design (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidel- berg, Vol. 4385, 2006, pp. 259-274.
[46]	D. Akoumianakis, G. Vellis, D. Kotsalis, G. Milolidakis and N. Vidakis, “Experience-Based Social and collabora-tive Performance in an ‘Electronic Village’ of Local In-terest: The eKoNΕΣ Framework,” In: J. Cardoso, J. Cor-deiro and J. Filipe, Ed., ICEIS’2007 – 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Volume HCI, INSTICC, Funchal, 2007, pp. 117-122,
[47]	D. Akoumianakis and C. Stephanidis, “Blending Scenarios and Informal Argumentation to Facilitate Universal Access: Experience with the Universal Access Assessment Workshop Method,” Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2003, pp. 227-244.