AN ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE FOR SOFTWARE RE‐ENGINEERING: A MODEL‐DRIVEN AND ONTOLOGY‐BASED APPROACH

Year 2017, , 24 - 42, 01.01.2017

Murat Paşa Uysal A. Erhan Mergen

https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd.2017195527

Abstract

Reusability, semantic communication, interoperability
may be the major problems during Software Re-engineering (SRE)
projects. In this study, therefore, we design and develop a SRE
Enterprise Architecture (EA) and evaluate it using ontological
methods and techniques. The study is conducted according to the
guidelines and principles of Design Science Research Method. The
SRE, Model-Driven Architecture and Ontology knowledge domains
formed the theoretical foundations of our research. The
contributions of the study to Software Engineering Research
Domain could be (a) the holistic and enterprise architectural
approach adopted for SRE and (b) improving the sematic
architecture of SRE processes using ontological evaluation
methods and techniques. Our first impression is as it can provide
different views to SRE issues at various abstraction levels while it
can represent the requirements of various stakeholders in a SRE
project.

Keywords

Software Reengineering, Enterprise Architecture, Model-Driven Architecture, Ontology

YAZILIM YENİDEN YAPILAMAYA YÖNELİK BİR KURUMSAL MİMARI: MODEL GÜDÜMLÜ VE ONTOLOJİ TABANLI BİR YAKLAŞIM

Abstract

Tekrar kullanılabilirlik, bütünleştirme, anlamsal iletişim ve
birlikte çalışabilirlik Yazılım Yeniden Yapılama (YYY) projelerinde
karşılaşılabilen ana sorunlar arasındadır. Bu kapsamda
çalışmamızda, YYY yönelik bir Kurumsal Mimari (KM)
geliştirilmiş, ontolojik yöntemlerle test ve değerlendirilmiştir.
Tasarım Bilimi Araştırma Yöntemi doğrultusunda yürütülen
araştırmanın ana bileşenleri ve teorik temellerini YYY, Model
Güdümlü Mimari, Kurumsal Mimari ve Ontoloji bilgi alanları
oluşturmuştur. Çalışmanın yazılım mühendisliği alanına olan
katkılarını, (a) YYY sürecine KM ile bütüncül yaklaşılması ile (b)
KM ve YYY süreçlerinin anlamsal yapılarının ontolojik
yöntemlerle iyileştirilmesi olarak göstermek mümkündür. İlk
izlenimlerimiz, geliştirilen KM’nin değişik soyutlama
düzeylerindeki YYY problemlerine farklı bakış açılarını
kazandırarak yazılımla ilgili paydaşların görüş ve ihtiyaçlarını
karşılayabileceği yönündedir.

Keywords

Yazılım Yeniden Yapılama, Kurumsal Mimari, Model Güdümlü Mimari, Ontoloji

References

• [1] Editorial, 2011. A retrospective view of software maintenance and reengineering research- a selection of papers from 2010 European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution, DOI: 10.1002/smr.548.
• [2] Tahvildari, L., Kontogiannis, K. & Mylopoulos J. 2003. Quality-driven software reengineering, The Journal of Systems and Software, 66, s.225- 239.
• [3] Uysal, M.P. ve Mergen, 2013. E. A Quality-oriented approach to software reengineering, The Northeast Decision Sciences 2013 Annual Conference, Brooklyn, NY, USA, April 5-7, s.971-979.
• [4] Wagner C. 2014. Model-driven software migration: a methodology, reengineering, recovery and modernization of legacy system, USA, Springer Vieweg.
• [5] Swithinbank, P., Chessell, M., Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Man, J., Wylie, H. & Yusuf, L. 2005. Patterns: Modeldriven development using ıbm rational software architect, USA, Redbooks.
• [6] Beydeda, S.,·Book M., Gruhn, V. 2004.. Model-driven software development, USA, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
• [7] Hevner, A. & Chatterjee S. 2010. Design Research in information systems, Integrated Series in Information Systems, 22, DOI 10.1007/978-1.
• [8] Vaishnavi, V.K. & Kuechler W.J. 2008. Design Science Research methods and patterns: innovating ınformation and communication technology, USA, Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group.
• [9] Elliot, J. Chikofsky and James H. C. 1990. Reverse engineering and design recovery: a taxonomy, IEEE Software, Cilt. 7, No.1, s.13-17.
• [10] Object Management Group 2003. MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. Technical Report omg/2003-06-01, OMG.
• [11] McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., Walters, G. F. 1977. Factors in software quality, Nat'l Tech. Information Service, Cilt. 1, No.2 ve 3.
• [12] Lankhorst, M. 2009. Enterprise architecture at work: modelling, communication, and analysis, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
• [13] TOGAF 2011. TOGAF Version 9.1, Open Group Standard, The Open Group.
• [14] Uysal, M.P, Mergen E.A. 2015. Yazılım yeniden yapılamaya yönelik model güdümlü ve kaliteye yönelimli süreç modeli, 9. Ulusal Yazılım Mühendisliği Sempozyumu.
• [15] Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., McLeod, G., Merritt 2016. M.ISO/IEC 2501n. Quality model division. http://www.iso.org. Erişim Tarihi: 28.05.2016.
• [16] Antunes, G., Bakhshandeh, M., Mayer, Rudolf, Borbinha, J. Caetano,.A. 2013. Using ontologies for enterprise architecture analysis, 17th IEEE International EDOCW, Vancouver, BC.
• [17] Green, P., Rosemann M. 2005. Business systems analysis with ontologies, USA, Idea Group Publishing.
• [18] Szwed P. 2016. Plugin for transforming Archimate files into OWL, [http://home.agh.edu.pl/ ~pszwed /en/doku.php? id=archi_to_owl], Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2016.
• [19] Pérez A.G., López, M.F., Corcho, O. 2004. Ontological engineering: with examples from the areas of knowledge management, eCommerce and the semantic web, Springer-Verlag London Limited.
• [20] Daconta, M.C., Smith, K.T., Obrst, L.J., 2003. The Semantic Web: A guide to the future of XML, web services, and knowledge management, John Wiley & Sons Inc..
• [21] Giray, G. ve Ünalır, M.O. 2007. Yazılım mühendisliğinde ontolojilerin kullanımı, III.Ulusal Yazılım Mühendisliği Sempozyumu - UYMS 2007, Ankara, s.69-76.
• [22] Hannay, J.E., Sjøberg, D.I.K., Dybå, T. 2007. A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Cilt 33(2), s. 87-107.
• [23] Shull F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. 2008. Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, SpringerVerlag London Limited, USA.
• [24] Woods, S.G., Quilici, A.E., Yang, Q. 2012. Constraint-based design recovery for software reengineering: theory and experiments, Springer, USA,
• [25] Miller H. 1997. Reengineering legacy software systems, Digital Press, USA,
• [26] Sage A.P. 1995. Systems Engineering and systems management for reengineering, Journal of Systems Software, Cilt 30, s.3-25,
• [27] Birchall C. 2016. Re-engineering legacy software, Manning Publications,
• [28] Seacord R.C., Plakosh D., Lewis G.A. 2003. Modernizing legacy systems: software technologies, engineering processes, and business practices, Addison-Wesley, USA.
• [29] Frakes W.B., Kulczycki G., Moodliar N. 2008. An empirical comparison of methods for reengineering procedural software systems to object-oriented systems, SpringerVerlag, USA.
• [30] Serge D., Ducasse S., Nierstrasz, O. 2002. Object-oriented reengineering patterns (the morgan kaufmann series in software engineering and programming), Morgan Kaufmann, USA.
• [31] Rada, R. 2005. Reengineering Software: How to reuse programming to build new, state-ofthe-art software, Glenlake Publishing Co.
• [32] Valenti, S. 2002. Successful software reengineering, IGI Global, USA.
• [33] Happel, H.J., Seedorf, S. 2006. Applications of ontologies in software engineering, 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE 2006), Athens, GA, U.S.A..
• [34] Yang, H., Cui, Z. ve OBrien, P. 1999. Extracting ontologies from legacy systems for understanding and reengineering, Computer Software and Applications Conference.
• [35] Bringuente, A.C.O., Falbo R.A., Guizzardi, G. 2011. Using a foundational ontology for reengineerıng a software process ontology, Journal of Information and Data Management, Vol 2, No 3, s.511-526.
• [36] Katasonov, A. 2012. Ontologydriven software engineering: beyond model checking and transformations, International Journal of Semantic Computing, Vol. 6, No: 2, s.205-242.