Cited by 75Advanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques

Application of knowledge-based approaches in software architecture: A systematic mapping study

Open access
Li, Zengyang, Liang, Peng, Avgeriou, Paris·2013·Information and Software Technology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.11.005

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A number of meta-models aim at representing design decisions and rationale.

    “We have seen a number of meta-models that aim at representing design decisions and rationale [52, 99].”

    From Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 3.3 describes a meta-model that makes architectural design-decision knowledge explicit, supporting the design-decision part of the claim. Section 2.1.2 discusses decision rationale, but our copy does not establish that multiple meta-models aim to represent both decisions and their rationale. No page number is available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Traceability of architecture knowledge improves understandability, helps locate relevant knowledge, enables impact analysis, and facilitates design review, evaluation and assessment.

    “Traceability of architecture knowledge improves understandability of software architectures, helps to locate relevant knowledge, enables impact analysis of architectural changes, and facilitates design review, evaluation and assessment [52, 80].”

    From Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 3.3 reports that making architectural design decisions and their relationships explicit can improve impact analysis. Section 2.1.1 also discusses architecture understanding, but the paper does not establish that traceability itself improves understanding or helps locate relevant knowledge, nor that it facilitates design review, evaluation, and assessment. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. A. Tang, J. Han, Architecture Rationalization: A Methodol- ogy for Architecture Verifiability, Traceability and Complete- ness, in: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'05), IEEE Computer Society, Greenbelt, MD, USA, 2005, pp. 135-144.
  2. A. Jansen, P. Avgeriou, J.S.v.d. Ven, Enriching software architecture documentation, Journal of System and Software, 82 (8) (2009) 1232-1248.
  3. J. Noppen, D. Tamzalit, ETAK: tailoring architectural evo- lution by (re-)using architectural knowledge, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK'10), ACM, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010, pp. 21-28.
  4. Akoka, S. Liddle, I.-Y. Song, M. Bertolotto, I. Comyn-Wattiau, W.-J. van den Heuvel, M. Kolp, J. Trujillo, C. Kop, H. Mayr (Eds.) Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling, Springer Berlin/ Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 444-453.
  5. A.W. Kiwelekar, R.K. Joshi, Ontological analysis for gener- ating baseline architectural descriptions, in: Proceedings of the 4th European conference on Software architecture (ECSA'10), Springer-Verlag, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2010, pp. 417-424.
  6. Rensink, J. Warmer (Eds.) Model Driven Architecture -Foundations and Applica- tions, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 198-212.
  7. Z. Yonggang, R. Witte, J. Rilling, V. Haarslev, Ontology- based program comprehension tool supporting website archi- tectural evolution, in: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on Web Site Evolution (WSE'06), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2006, pp. 41-49.
  8. A. Jansen, J. Bosch, Software Architecture as a set of archi- tectural design decisions, in: Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'05), IEEE Computer Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2005, pp. 109-120.
  9. A. Tang, J. Han, R. Vasa, Software architecture design rea- soning: a case for improved methodology support, IEEE Soft- ware, 26 (2) (2009) 43-49.
  10. W. Wang, J.E. Burge, Using rationale to support pattern- based architectural design, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK'10), ACM, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010, pp. 1-8.
  11. L. Bratthall, E. Johansson, B. Regnell, Is a design rationale vital when predicting change impact? A controlled experiment on software architecture evolution, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES'00), Springer-Verlag, Oulu, Finland, 2000, pp. 126-139.
  12. ISO, International Standard -ISO/IEC 14764 IEEE Std 14764-2006 Software Engineering -Software Life Cycle Processes -Maintenance, ISO/IEC 14764:2006 (E) IEEE Std 14764-2006 Revision of IEEE Std 1219-1998), 2006, 0_1-46.
  13. IEEE, IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software- Intensive Systems, IEEE Std 1471-2000, 2000, i-23.
  14. IEEE, IEEE Standard for Information Technology -System and Software Life Cycle Processes -Reuse Processes, IEEE Std 1517-2010 (Revision of IEEE Std 1517-1999), 2010, pp. 1-51.
  15. M. Alavi, D.E. Leidner, Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly 25 (2001) 107-136.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Z., Liang, P., & Avgeriou, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Wuhan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Zengyang
Venue
Information and Software Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
777-794
ISSN
0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148849527
Cited by
74
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information and Software Technology (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Model-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Keywords
knowledge-based approach, software architecture, knowledge management, knowledge reuse, knowledge capture, knowledge representation, ontology (information science), architecture evaluation, knowledge recovery, embedded software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review