Architecting in global software engineering

Cataloged from PDF version of article.This paper summarizes the results of the First Workshop on Architecting in Global Software Engineering (GSE), which was organized in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2011). The workshop aimed to bring together researchers and practitioners for defining and advancing the state-of-the-art and state-of-the practice in architecture design of global software development systems

Ethics of engineering education

Ethics of Engineering Education is a result of an international conference organized by the Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. It consists of ten parts including teaching technologies, engineering education, engineering professional ethics, engineering and society, research in engineering education and integrating ethics into engineering education. It also covers diverse aspects of engineering education such as outcome-based grading system, engineering career opportunities, engineers’ responsibilities: safety, risk and liability. The book discusses factors that influence ethical perceptions and practices of professional engineers, internet and Islam, ethical requirement in quality software engineering projects, Prophetic philosophy of pharmaceutics, the concept of itqÉn and its role in Muslim life and cultural factors on engineering codes of ethics in Asia, alongside with environmental ethics and global climate change

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

[EN] It is widely accepted that software measures provide an appropriate mechanism for understanding, monitoring, controlling, and predicting the quality of software development projects. In software product lines (SPL), quality is even more important than in a single software product since, owing to systematic reuse, a fault or an inadequate design decision could be propagated to several products in the family. Over the last few years, a great number of quality attributes and measures for assessing the quality of SPL have been reported in literature. However, no studies summarizing the current knowledge about them exist. This paper presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying and interpreting all the available studies from 1996 to 2010 that present quality attributes and/or measures for SPL. These attributes and measures have been classified using a set of criteria that includes the life cycle phase in which the measures are applied; the corresponding quality characteristics; their support for specific SPL characteristics (e. g., variability, compositionality); the procedure used to validate the measures, etc. We found 165 measures related to 97 different quality attributes. The results of the review indicated that 92% of the measures evaluate attributes that are related to maintainability. In addition, 67% of the measures are used during the design phase of Domain Engineering, and 56% are applied to evaluate the product line architecture. However, only 25% of them have been empirically validated. In conclusion, the results provide a global vision of the state of the research within this area in order to help researchers in detecting weaknesses, directing research efforts, and identifying new research lines. In particular, there is a need for new measures with which to evaluate both the quality of the artifacts produced during the entire SPL life cycle and other quality characteristics. There is also a need for more validation (both theoretical and empirical) of existing measures. In addition, our results may be useful as a reference guide for practitioners to assist them in the selection or the adaptation of existing measures for evaluating their software product lines. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the MULTIPLE (Multimodeling Approach For Quality-Aware Software Product Lines) project with ref. TIN2009-13838.Montagud Gregori, S.; Abrahao Gonzales, SM.; Insfrán Pelozo, CE. (2012). A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines. Software Quality Journal. 20(3-4):425-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9146-7S425486203-4Abdelmoez, W., Nassar, D. M., Shereschevsky, M., Gradetsky, N., Gunnalan, R., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2004). Error propagation in software architectures. In 10th international symposium on software metrics (METRICS), Chicago, Illinois, USA.Ajila, S. A., & Dumitrescu, R. T. (2007). Experimental use of code delta, code churn, and rate of change to understand software product line evolution. Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 74–91.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2006). Experience measuring maintainability in software product lines. In XV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD). Barcelona.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2008). Quantifying maintanibility in feature oriented product lines, Athens, Greece, pp. 243–247.Alves de Oliveira Junior, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., & Maldonado, J. C. (2008). A metric suite to support software product line architecture evaluation. In XXXIV Conferencia Latinamericana de Informática (CLEI), Santa Fé, Argentina, pp. 489–498.Alves, V., Niu, N., Alves, C., & Valença, G. (2010). Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(8), 806–820.Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product line approach. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Briand, L. C., Differing, C. M., & Rombach, D. (1996a). Practical guidelines for measurement-based process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 2, 253–280.Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996b). Property based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Eng., 22(1), 68–86.Calero, C., Ruiz, J., & Piattini, M. (2005). Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review, 29(3): 227–248.Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., & Ali, N. (2009). Variability management in software product lines: A systematic review. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2002). Software product lines. 2003. Software product lines practices and patterns. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Crnkovic, I., & Larsson, M. (2004). Classification of quality attributes for predictability in component-based systems. Journal of Econometrics, pp. 231–250.Conference Rankings of Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). (2010). Available in http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1 .Davis, A., Dieste, Ó., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2006). Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE international conference requirements engineering, pp. 179–188.de Souza Filho, E. D., de Oliveira Cavalcanti, R., Neiva, D. F. S., Oliveira, T. H. B., Barachisio Lisboa, L., de Almeida E. S., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2008). Evaluating domain design approaches using systematic review. In 2nd European conference on software architecture, Cyprus, pp. 50–65.Ejiogu, L. (1991). Software engineering with formal metrics. QED Publishing.Engström, E., & Runeson, P. (2011). Software product line testing—A systematic mapping study. Information & Software Technology, 53(1), 2–13.Etxeberria, L., Sagarui, G., & Belategi, L. (2008). Quality aware software product line engineering. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 14(1), Campinas Mar.Ganesan, D., Knodel, J., Kolb, R., Haury, U., & Meier, G. (2007). Comparing costs and benefits of different test strategies for a software product line: A study from Testo AG. In 11th international software product line conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 74–83, September 2007.Gómez, O., Oktaba, H., Piattini, M., & García, F. (2006). A systematic review measurement in software engineering: State-of-the-art in measures. In First international conference on software and data technologies (ICSOFT), Setúbal, Portugal, pp. 11–14.IEEE standard for a software quality metrics methodology, IEEE Std 1061-1998, 1998.Inoki, M., & Fukazawa, Y. (2007). Software product line evolution method based on Kaizen approach. In 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Korea.Insfran, E., & Fernandez, A. (2008). A systematic review of usability evaluation in Web development. 2nd international workshop on web usability and accessibility (IWWUA’08), New Zealand, LNCS 5176, Springer, pp. 81–91.ISO/IEC 25010. (2008). Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality models.ISO/IEC 9126. (2000). Software engineering. Product Quality.Johansson, E., & Höst, R. (2002). Tracking degradation in software product lines through measurement of design rule violations. In 14th International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, Ischia, Italy, pp. 249–254.Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. (2010). Available in http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/ .Khurum, M., & Gorschek, T. (2009). A systematic review of domain analysis solutions for product lines. The Journal of Systems and Software.Kim, T., Ko, I. Y., Kang, S. W., & Lee, D. H. (2008). Extending ATAM to assess product line architecture. In 8th IEEE international conference on computer and information technology, pp. 790–797.Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report, Keele University, UK.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., & Fenton, N. (1995). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12).Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Mendes, E. (2005). A systematic review of Web engineering research. International symposium on empirical software engineering. Noosa Heads, Australia.Meyer, M. H., & Dalal, D. (2002). Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for non assembled products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(4), 277–293.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). Gathering Current knowledge about quality evaluation in software product lines. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). A SQuaRE-bassed quality evaluation method for software product lines. Master’s thesis, December 2009 (in Spanish).Needham, D., & Jones, S. (2006). A software fault tree metric. In 22nd international conference on software maintenance (ICSM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Niemelä, E., & Immonen, A. (2007). Capturing quality requirements of product family architecture. Information and Software Technology, 49(11–12), 1107–1120.Odia, O. E. (2007). Testing in software product lines. Master Thesis Software Engineering of School of Engineering, Bleking Institute of Technology. Thesis no. MSE-2007:16, Sweden.Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007). A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 49, 309–323.Pérez Lamancha, B., Polo Usaola, M., & Piattini Velthius, M. (2009). Software product line testing—a systematic review. ICSOFT, (1), 23–30.Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(I), 35–46.Prehofer, C., van Gurp, J., & Bosch, J. (2008). Compositionality in software platforms. In Emerging methods, technologies and process management in software engineering. Wiley.Rahman, A. (2004). Metrics for the structural assessment of product line architecture. Master Thesis on Software Engineering, Thesis no. MSE-2004:24. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.Sethi, K., Cai, Y., Wong, S., Garcia, A., & Sant’Anna, C. (2009). From retrospect to prospect: Assessing modularity and stability from software architecture. Joint working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture, 2009 & European conference on software architecture. WICSA/ECSA.Shaik, I., Abdelmoez, W,. Gunnalan, R., Shereshevsky, M., Zeid, A., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2005). Change propagation for assessing design quality of software architectures. 5th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA’05).Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kuhlemann, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008). Measuring non-functional properties in software product lines for product derivation. In 15th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, Beijing, China.Sun Her, J., Hyeok Kim, J., Hun Oh, S., Yul Rhew, S., & Dong Kim, S. (2007). A framework for evaluating reusability of core asset in product line engineering. Information and Software Technology, 49, 740–760.Svahnberg, M., & Bosch, J. (2000). Evolution in software product lines. In 3rd international workshop on software architectures for products families (IWSAPF-3). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.Van der Hoek, A., Dincel, E., & Medidović, N. (2003). Using services utilization metrics to assess the structure of product line architectures. In 9th international software metrics symposium (METRICS), Sydney, Australia.Van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., & Rommes, E. (2007). Software product lines in action. Springer.Whitmire, S. (1997). Object oriented design measurement. John Wiley & Sons.Wnuk, K., Regnell, B., & Karlsson, L. (2009). What happened to our features? Visualization and understanding of scope change dynamics in a large-scale industrial setting. In 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference.Yoshimura, K., Ganesan, D., & Muthig, D. (2006). Assessing merge potential of existing engine control systems into a product line. In International workshop on software engineering for automative systems, Shangai, China, pp. 61–67.Zhang, T., Deng, L., Wu, J., Zhou, Q., & Ma, C. (2008). Some metrics for accessing quality of product line architecture. In International conference on computer science and software engineering (CSSE), Wuhan, China, pp. 500–503

The London Charter and the Seville Principles as sources of requirements for e-archaeology systems development purposes

[EN] Requirements engineering (RE) is a discipline of critical importance in software development. This paper provides a process and a set of software artefacts to help in the production of e-archaeology systems with emphasis on requirements reuse and standards. In particular, two important guidelines in the field of earchaeology, the London Charter and the Principles of Seville, have been shown as two sources of requirements to be considered as a starting point for developing this type of systems.[ES] La Ingeniería de Requisitos (IR) es una disciplina de importancia crítica en el desarrollo de software. Este artículo proporciona un proceso y un conjunto de artefactos software para ayudar en la producción de sistemas de e-arqueología con énfasis en reutilización de requisitos y estándares. En particular, dos guías relevantes en el campo de la e-arqueología, la Carta de Londres y los Principios de Sevilla, se han mostrado como dos fuentes de requisitos a tener en cuenta como punto de partida para el desarrollo de este tipo de sistemas.This research is part of the project PEGASO-PANGEA (TIN2009-13718-C02-02), financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain).Carrillo Gea, JM.; Toval, A.; Fernández Alemán, JL.; Nicolás, J.; Flores, M. (2013). The London Charter and the Seville Principles as sources of requirements for e-archaeology systems development purposes. Virtual Archaeology Review. 4(9):205-211. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2013.4275OJS20521149CH'NG, E. et al. (2011): "From sites to landscapes: how computing technology is shaping archaeological practice", en Computer, vol. 44, n. 7, pp. 40-46.COS, J.A. et al. (2012): "Internationalization requirements for e-learning audit purposes", en Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2012, pp. 90-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/educon.2012.6201027GLASS, R.L. (2002): Software engineering: facts and fallacies. Addison-Wesley. Boston.GREENFIELD, J. and SHORT, K. (2004): Software factories: assembling applications with patterns, models, frameworks, and tools. Wiley. Indianapolis.KÄKÖLÄ, T. and DUEÑAS, J.C. (Eds.) (2006): Software Product Lines. Research issues in engineering and management. Springer. Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33253-4TOVAL, A. et al. (2002): "Requirements reuse for improving information systems security: a practitioner's approach", en REJ Requirements Engineering Journal, vol. 6, n. 4, pp. 205-219.TOVAL, A. et al. (2008): "Eight key issues for an effective reuse-based requirements process", en IJCSSE International Journal of Computer Systems Science and Engineering, vol. 23, n. 6, pp. 373-385.TOVAL, A. et al. (2011): "Learning systems development using reusable standard-based requirements catalogs", en Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2011, pp. 907- 912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/educon.2011.577325

A Global Optimisation Toolbox for Massively Parallel Engineering Optimisation

A software platform for global optimisation, called PaGMO, has been developed within the Advanced Concepts Team (ACT) at the European Space Agency, and was recently released as an open-source project. PaGMO is built to tackle high-dimensional global optimisation problems, and it has been successfully used to find solutions to real-life engineering problems among which the preliminary design of interplanetary spacecraft trajectories - both chemical (including multiple flybys and deep-space maneuvers) and low-thrust (limited, at the moment, to single phase trajectories), the inverse design of nano-structured radiators and the design of non-reactive controllers for planetary rovers. Featuring an arsenal of global and local optimisation algorithms (including genetic algorithms, differential evolution, simulated annealing, particle swarm optimisation, compass search, improved harmony search, and various interfaces to libraries for local optimisation such as SNOPT, IPOPT, GSL and NLopt), PaGMO is at its core a C++ library which employs an object-oriented architecture providing a clean and easily-extensible optimisation framework. Adoption of multi-threaded programming ensures the efficient exploitation of modern multi-core architectures and allows for a straightforward implementation of the island model paradigm, in which multiple populations of candidate solutions asynchronously exchange information in order to speed-up and improve the optimisation process. In addition to the C++ interface, PaGMO's capabilities are exposed to the high-level language Python, so that it is possible to easily use PaGMO in an interactive session and take advantage of the numerous scientific Python libraries available.Comment: To be presented at 'ICATT 2010: International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques

Implementation challenges of annotated 3D models in collaborative design environments

Recent studies in the area of collaborative design have proposed the use of 3D annotations as a tool to make design information explicitly available within the 3D model, so that different stakeholders can share information throughout the product lifecycle. Annotation practices defined by the latest digital definition standards have formalized the presentation of information and facilitated the implementation of annotation tools in CAD systems. In this paper, we review the latest studies in annotation methods and technologies and explore their expected benefits in the context of collaborative design. Next, we analyze the implementation challenges of different annotation approaches, focusing specifically on design intent annotations. An analysis of the literature suggests that the use of annotations has a positive effect on collaborative design communication as long as proper implementation practices, tools, and user interaction mechanisms are in placeCamba, J.; Contero, M.; Salvador Herranz, GM. (2014). Implementation challenges of annotated 3D models in collaborative design environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8683:222-229. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10831-5_332222298683Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, D.K.: The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review 71(2), 111–120 (2005)Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C.: Relations between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups. Personnel Psychology 46, 823–850 (1993)Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M.B.: How Virtual Are We? Measuring Virtuality and Understanding its Impact in a Global Organization. Information Systems Journal 15, 279–306 (2005)Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Hakkarainen, K.: Collaboration Patterns in Computer Supported Collaborative Designing. Design Studies 25, 351–371 (2004)Chang, K.H., Silva, J., Bryant, I.: Concurrent Design and Manufacturing for Mechanical Systems. Concurrent Engineering 7, 290–308 (1999)Jackson, C., Buxton, M.: The Design Reuse Benchmark Report: Seizing the Opportunity to Shorten Product Development. Aberdeen Group, Boston (2007)Lang, S., Dickinson, J., Buchal, R.O.: Cognitive Factors in Distributed Design. Computers in Industry 48, 89–98 (2002)Alemanni, M., Destefanis, F., Vezzetti, E.: Model-Based Definition Design in the Product Lifecycle Management Scenario. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 52(1-4), 1–14 (2011)ASME: ASME Y14.41-2012 Digital Product Definition Data Practices. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (2012)ISO: ISO 16792:2006 Technical Product Documentation – Digital Product Definition Data Practices. Organisation Internationale de Normalisation, Genève, Suisse (2006)Bracewell, R.H., Wallace, K.M.: A Tool for Capturing Design Rationale. In:14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Society, Stockholm, Sweden (2003)Boujut, J.F., Dugdale, J.: Design of a 3D Annotation Tool for Supporting Evaluation Activities in Engineering Design. Cooperative Systems Design, COOP 6, 1–8 (2006)Alducin-Quintero, G., Rojo, A., Plata, F., Hernández, A., Contero, M.: 3D Model Annotation as a Tool for Improving Design Intent Communication: A Case Study on its Impact in the Engineering Change Process. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Chicago, Illinois (2012)Sandberg, S., Näsström, M.: A Proposed Method to Preserve Knowledge and Information by Use of Knowledge Enabled Engineering. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada (2007)Dorribo-Camba, J., Alducin-Quintero, G., Perona, P., Contero, M.: Enhancing Model Reuse through 3D Annotations: A Theoretical Proposal for an Annotation-Centered Design Intent and Design Rationale Communication. In: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, San Diego, California (2013)Ding, L., Ball, A., Patel, M., Matthews, J., Mullineux, G.: Strategies for the Collaborative Use of CAD Product Models. In: 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 8, pp. 123–134 (2009)Davies, D., McMahon, C.A.: Multiple Viewpoint Design Modelling through Semantic Markup. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Philadelphia, PA, vol. 3, pp. 561–571 (2006)Pena-Mora, F., Sriram, D., Logcher, R.: SHARED-DRIMS: SHARED Design Recommendation-Intent Management System. Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 213–221 (1993)Iyer, N., Jayanti, S., Lou, K., Kalyanaraman, Y., Ramani, K.: Shape-based Searching for Product Lifecycle Applications. Computer-Aided Design 37(13), 1435–1446 (2005)Li, C., McMahon, C., Newnes, L.: Annotation in Product Lifecycle Management: A Review of Approaches. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 2, pp. 797–806 (2009)Ding, L., Liu, S.: Markup in Engineering Design: A Discourse. Future Internet 2, 74–95 (2010)Patel, M., Ball, A., Ding, L.: Curation and Preservation of CAD Engineering Models in Product Lifecycle Management. In: Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia Dedicated to Digital Heritage, University of Bath, pp. 59–66 (2008)Ding, L., Davies, D., McMahon, C.A.: The Integration of Lightweight Representation and Annotation for Collaborative Design Representation. Research in Engineering Design 20(3), 185–200 (2009)Patel, M., Ball, A., Ding, L.: Strategies for the Curation of CAD Engineering Models. International Journal of Digital Curation 4(1), 84–97 (2009)Ganeshan, R., Garrett, J., Finger, S.: A Framework for Representing Design Intent. Design Studies 15(1), 59–84 (1994)Myers, K., Zumel, N., Garcia, P.: Acquiring Design Rationale Automatically. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 14(2), 115–135 (2000)Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working paper 131. Center for Planning and Development Research, Berkeley (1970)Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B., Nuseibeh, B.: Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale: 15 Years on from Gibis and Qoc. Rationale Management in Software Engineering, 111–132 (2006)Sung, R., Ritchie, J.M., Rea, H.J., Corney, J.: Automated Design Knowledge Capture and Representation in Single-User CAD Environments. J. of Eng. Design 22(7), 487–503 (2011)Chandrasegaran, S.K., Ramani, K., Sriram, R.D., Horváth, I., Bernard, A., Harik, R.F., Gao, W.: The Evolution, Challenges, and Future of Knowledge Representation in Product Design Systems. Computer-Aided Design 45(2), 204–228 (2013)Ellis, G., Dix, A.: A Taxonomy of Clutter Reduction for Information Visualisation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13(6), 1216–1223 (2007)Cipriano, G., Gleicher, M.: Text Scaffolds for Effective Surface Labeling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14(6), 1675–1682 (2008)Stein, T., Décoret, X.: Dynamic Label Placement for Improved Interactive Exploration. In: 6th International Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, pp. 15–21 (2008)Götzelmann, T., Hartmann, K., Strothotte, T.: Agent-Based Annotation of Interactive 3D Visualizations. In: Butz, A., Fisher, B., Krüger, A., Olivier, P. (eds.) SG 2006. LNCS, vol. 4073, pp. 24–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Szykman, S., Sriram, R., Regli, W.: The Role of Knowledge in Next-Generation Product Development Systems. J. of Computing and Inf. Science in Engineering 1(1), 3–11 (2001)Aubry, S., Thouvenin, I., Lenne, D., Olive, J.: A Knowledge Model to Read 3D Annotations on a Virtual Mock-up for Collaborative Design. In: 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, pp. 669–674 (2007)Jung, T., Gross, M.D., Do, E.Y.L.: Sketching Annotations in a 3D Web Environment. In: CHI 2002, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 618–619 (2002)Bilasco, I.M., Gensel, J., Villanova-Oliver, M., Martin, H.: An MPEG-7 Framework Enhancing the Reuse of 3D Models. In: 11th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Columbia, Maryland (2006)Pittarello, F., De Faveri, A.: Semantic Description of 3D Environments: A Proposal Based on Web Standards. In: 11th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Columbia, Maryland (2006)Song, H., Guimbretière, F., Hu, C., Lipson, H.: ModelCraft: Capturing Freehand Annotations and Edits on Physical 3D Models. In: 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 13–22 (2006