scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

View model

About: View model is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2826 publications have been published within this topic receiving 49858 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
John A. Zachman1
TL;DR: Information systems architecture is defined by creating a descriptive framework from disciplines quite independent of information systems, then by analogy specifies information systems architecture based upon the neutral, objective framework.
Abstract: With increasing size and complexity of the implementations of information systems, it is necessary to use some logical construct (or architecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and the integration of all of the components of the system. This paper defines information systems architecture by creating a descriptive framework from disciplines quite independent of information systems, then by analogy specifies information systems architecture based upon the neutral, objective framework. Also, some preliminary conclusions about the implications of the resultant descriptive framework are drawn. The discussion is limited to architecture and does not include a strategic planning methodology.

3,219 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The 4+1 View Model organizes a description of a software architecture using five concurrent views, each of which addresses a specific set of concerns.
Abstract: The 4+1 View Model organizes a description of a software architecture using five concurrent views, each of which addresses a specific set of concerns. Architects capture their design decisions in four views and use the fifth view to illustrate and validate them. The logical view describes the design's object model when an object-oriented design method is used. To design an application that is very data driven, you can use an alternative approach to develop some other form of logical view, such as an entity-relationship diagram. The process view describes the design's concurrency and synchronization aspects. The physical view describes the mapping of the software onto the hardware and reflects its distributed aspect. The development view describes the software's static organization in its development environment. >

2,177 citations

01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: This document defines the Web Services Architecture, which identifies the functional components, defines the relationships among those components, and establishes a set of constraints upon each to effect the desired properties of the overall architecture.
Abstract: This document defines the Web Services Architecture. The architecture identifies the functional components, defines the relationships among those components, and establishes a set of constraints upon each to effect the desired properties of the overall architecture.

1,563 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John F. Sowa1, John A. Zachman
TL;DR: The ISA framework and its recent extensions are presented and it is shown how it can be formalized in the notation of conceptual graphs.
Abstract: John Zachman introduced a framework for information systems architecture (ISA) that has been widely adopted by systems analysts and database designers. It provides a taxonomy for relating the concepts that describe the real work to the concepts that describe an information system and its implementation. The ISA framework has a simple elegance that makes it easy to remember, yet it draws attention to fundamental distinctions that are often overlooked in systems design. This paper presents the framework and its recent extensions and shows how it can be formalized in the notation of conceptual graphs.

1,114 citations

Book
22 Oct 2001
TL;DR: The ATAM-A Method for Architecture Evaluation focuses on using Quality Attribute Characterizations in the ATAM to evaluate Architecture as a Reusable, Transferable Abstraction of a System.
Abstract: List of Figures. List of Tables. Preface. Acknowledgments. Reader's Guide. 1. What Is Software Architecture? Architecture as a Vehicle for Communication among Stakeholders. Architecture and Its Effects on Stakeholders. Architectural Views. Architecture Description Languages. Architecture as the Manifestation of the Earliest Design Decisions. Architectural Styles. Architecture as a Reusable, Transferable Abstraction of a System. Summary. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 2. Evaluating a Software Architecture. Why Evaluate an Architecture? When Can an Architecture Be Evaluated? Who's Involved? What Result Does an Architecture Evaluation Produce? For What Qualities Can We Evaluate an Architecture? Why Are Quality Attributes Too Vague for Analysis? What Are the Outputs of an Architecture Evaluation? Outputs from the ATAM, the SAAM, and ARID. Outputs Only from the ATAM. What Are the Benefits and Costs of Performing an Architecture Evaluation? For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 3. The ATAM-A Method for Architecture Evaluation. Summary of the ATAM Steps. Detailed Description of the ATAM Steps. Step 1: Present the ATAM. Step 2: Present the Business Drivers. Step 3: Present the Architecture. Step 4: Identify the Architectural Approaches. Step 5: Generate the Quality Attribute Utility Tree. Step 6: Analyze the Architectural Approaches. Step 7: Brainstorm and Prioritize Scenarios. Step 8: Analyze the Architectural Approaches. Step 9: Present the Results. The Phases of the ATAM. Phase 0 Activities. Phase 1 Activities. Phase 2 Activities. Phase 3 Activities. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 4. The Battlefield Control System-The First Case Study in Applying the ATAM. Preparation. Phase 1. Step 1: Present the ATAM. Step 2: Present the Business Drivers. Step 3: Present the Architecture. Step 4: Identify the Architectural Approaches. Step 5: Generate the Quality Attribute Utility Tree. Step 6: Analyze the Architectural Approaches. Phase 2. Step 7: Brainstorm and Prioritize Scenarios. Step 8: Analyze the Architectural Approaches. Step 9: Present the Results. Results of the BCS Evaluation. Documentation. Requirements. Sensitivities and Tradeoffs. Architectural Risks. Summary. Discussion Questions. 5. Understanding Quality Attributes. Quality Attribute Characterizations. Performance. Availability. Modifiability. Characterizations Inspire Questions. Using Quality Attribute Characterizations in the ATAM. Attribute-Based Architectural Styles. Summary. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 6. A Case Study in Applying the ATAM. Background. Phase 0: Partnership and Preparation. Phase 0, Step 1: Present the ATAM. Phase 0, Step 2: Describe Candidate System. Phase 0, Step 3: Make a Go/No-Go Decision. Phase 0, Step 4: Negotiate the Statement of Work. Phase 0, Step 5: Form the Core Evaluation Team. Phase 0, Step 6: Hold Evaluation Team Kick-off Meeting. Phase 0, Step 7: Prepare for Phase 1. Phase 0, Step 8: Review the Architecture. Phase 1: Initial Evaluation. Phase 1, Step 1: Present the ATAM. Phase 1, Step 2: Present Business Drivers. Phase 1, Step 3: Present the Architecture. Phase 1, Step 4: Identify Architectural Approaches. Phase 1, Step 5: Generate Quality Attribute Utility Tree. Phase 1, Step 6: Analyze the Architectural Approaches. Hiatus between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2: Complete Evaluation. Phase 2, Step 0: Prepare for Phase 2. Phase 2, Steps 1-6. Phase 2, Step 7: Brainstorm and Prioritize Scenarios. Phase 2, Step 8: Analyze Architectural Approaches. Phase 2, Step 9: Present Results. Phase 3: Follow-Up. Phase 3, Step 1: Produce the Final Report. Phase 3, Step 2: Hold the Postmortem Meeting. Phase 3, Step 3: Build Portfolio and Update Artifact Repositories. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 7. Using the SAAM to Evaluate an Example Architecture. Overview of the SAAM. Inputs to a SAAM Evaluation. Outputs from a SAAM Evaluation. Steps of a SAAM Evaluation. Step 1: Develop Scenarios. Step 2: Describe the Architecture(s). Step 3: Classify and Prioritize the Scenarios. Step 4: Individually Evaluate Indirect Scenarios. Step 5: Assess Scenario Interactions. Step 6: Create the Overall Evaluation. A Sample SAAM Agenda. A SAAM Case Study. ATAT System Overview. Step 1: Develop Scenarios, First Iteration. Step 2: Describe the Architecture(s), First Iteration. Step 1: Develop Scenarios, Second Iteration. Step 2: Describe the Architecture(s), Second Iteration. Step 3: Classify and Prioritize the Scenarios. Step 4: Individually Evaluate Indirect Scenarios. Step 5: Assess Scenario Interactions. Step 6: Create the Overall Evaluation-Results and Recommendations. Summary. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 8. ARID-An Evaluation Method for Partial Architectures. Active Design Reviews. ARID: An ADR/ATAM Hybrid. The Steps of ARID. Phase 1: Rehearsal. Phase 2: Review. A Case Study in Applying ARID. Carrying Out the Steps. Results of the Exercise. Summary. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 9. Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. Questioning Techniques. Questionnaires and Checklists. Scenarios and Scenario-Based Methods. Measuring Techniques. Metrics. Simulations, Prototypes, and Experiments. Rate-Monotonic Analysis. Automated Tools and Architecture Description Languages. Hybrid Techniques. Software Performance Engineering. The ATAM. Summary. For Further Reading. Discussion Questions. 10. Growing an Architecture Evaluation Capability in Your Organization. Building Organizational Buy-in. Growing a Pool of Evaluators. Establishing a Corporate Memory. Cost and Benefit Data. Method Guidance. Reusable Artifacts. Summary. Discussion Questions. 11. Conclusions. You Are Now Ready! What Methods Have You Seen? Why Evaluate Architectures? Why Does the ATAM Work? A Parting Message. Appendix A: An Example Attribute-Based Architectural Style. Problem Description. Stimulus/Response. Architectural Style. Analysis. Reasoning. Priority Assignment. Priority Inversion. Blocking Time. For Further Reading. References. Index. 020170482XT10082001

902 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Software development
73.8K papers, 1.4M citations
88% related
Software system
50.7K papers, 935K citations
86% related
Software construction
36.2K papers, 743.8K citations
85% related
Web service
57.6K papers, 989K citations
83% related
Ontology (information science)
57K papers, 869.1K citations
81% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20235
20228
202111
202012
201915
201818