The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using style to understand descriptions of software architecture
Abstract
The software architecture of most systems is described informally and diagrammatically. In order for these descriptions to be meaningful at all, figures are understood by interpreting the boxes and lines in specific, conventionalized ways[5]. The imprecision of these interpretations has a number of limitations. In this paper we consider these conventionalized interpretations as architectural styles and provide a formal framework for their uniform definition. In addition to providing a template for precisely defining new architectural styles, this framework allows for the proof that the notational constraints on a style are sufficient to guarantee the meanings of all described systems and provides a unified semantic base through which different stylistic interpretations can be compared.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages
Medvidovic, N., & Taylor, R. N. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.825767 · Cited by 1,987
Architectural mismatch: why reuse is so hard
Garlan, D., Allen, R., & Ockerbloom, J. (1995) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.469757 · Cited by 494
Self-citationSAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures
Kazman, R., Bass, L., Abowd, G. D., & Webb, M. (1994) · doi:10.5555/257734.257746 · Cited by 482
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Abowd, G., Allen, R., & Garlan, D.
- Venue
- ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 9-20
- ISSN
- 0163-5948 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982760276
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using style to understand descriptions of software architecture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/167049.167055
- The paper
- Abowd, G., Allen, R., & Garlan, D. (1993). Using style to understand descriptions of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. https://doi.org/10.1145/167049.167055
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
