Encapsulating and representing the knowledge on the evaluation of an engineering system

This paper proposes a cross-disciplinary methodology for a fundamental question in product development: How can the innovation patterns during the evolution of an engineering system (ES) be encapsulated, so that it can later be mined through data mining analysis methods? Reverse engineering answers the question of which components a developed engineering system consists of, and how the components interact to make the working product. TRIZ answers the question of which problem-solving principles can be, or have been employed in developing that system, in comparison to its earlier versions, or with respect to similar systems. While these two methodologies have been very popular, to the best of our knowledge, there does not yet exist a methodology that reverseengineers and encapsulates and represents the information regarding the complete product development process in abstract terms. This paper suggests such a methodology, that consists of mathematical formalism, graph visualization, and database representation. The proposed approach is demonstrated by analyzing the design and development process for a prototype wrist-rehabilitation robot

Using Design Patterns, Analysis Pattern, and Case-Based Reasoning to Improve Information Modeling and Method Engineering in Systems Development

Information modeling (IM) is the process of identifying information needs and models based onuser requirements and systems analysts’ perceptions during systems analysis and design. WhenIM is done correctly, it facilitates communication between the analysts and end-users about thefinal software product. In addition, successful IM provides a formal basis for both the analystsand the end-users about the tools and techniques that will be used in software development(SD), which, in turn, reduces costly overruns in time and money during systemsimplementation. Method engineering (ME) is the process of designing, constructing, andadapting information modeling methods for information systems development. As Siau (2003)and Kavakli (2005) point out that, while there has been a steady increase in IM and ME research(e.g. Kawalek & Wastell 2003, Kavakli 2005, Matulevicius 2005), most of the models reportedin recent literature are still primarily based on common sense approach, and, as a result, lack aslid theoretical foundation.This paper discusses the feasibility of combining design patterns (DPs), analysis patterns (APs) andcase-based reasoning (CBR) to improve information modeling and method engineering. Recentresearch in DP, AP, and CBR has proven that all those methods are effective in softwaredevelopment. In this paper, we propose a model that combines DP, AP and CBR as a tool toimprove IM and ME. We believe that the use of DP and AP, along with CBR will facilitate easiercommunication among systems analysts, end-users and software engineers thus improve on heefficiency in software development. In the paper, we also provide illustrative examples fromaccounting systems design to show the effectiveness of our proposed model. Finally, we provideevidence in this paper that the practical application of DPs, APs and CBR to systems developmentmakes it possible to identify and resolve critical issues and risks at earlier stages in IM and ME, andeventually lead to high quality end product

Defining and validating a multimodel approach for product architecture derivation and improvement

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41533-3_24Software architectures are the key to achieving the non-functional requirements (NFRs) in any software project. In software product line (SPL) development, it is crucial to identify whether the NFRs for a specific product can be attained with the built-in architectural variation mechanisms of the product line architecture, or whether additional architectural transformations are required. This paper presents a multimodel approach for quality-driven product architecture derivation and improvement (QuaDAI). A controlled experiment is also presented with the objective of comparing the effectiveness, efficiency, perceived ease of use, intention to use and perceived usefulness with regard to participants using QuaDAI as opposed to the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM). The results show that QuaDAI is more efficient and perceived as easier to use than ATAM, from the perspective of novice software architecture evaluators. However, the other variables were not found to be statistically significant. Further replications are needed to obtain more conclusive results.This research is supported by the MULTIPLE project (MICINN TIN2009-13838) and the Vali+D fellowship program (ACIF/2011/235).González Huerta, J.; Insfrán Pelozo, CE.; Abrahao Gonzales, SM. (2013). Defining and validating a multimodel approach for product architecture derivation and improvement. En Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer. 388-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41533-3_24S388404Ali-Babar, M., Lago, P., Van Deursen, A.: Empirical research in software architecture: opportunities, challenges, and approaches. Empirical Software Engineering 16(5), 539–543 (2011)Ali-Babar, M., Zhu, L., Jeffery, R.: A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. In: 15th Australian Software Engineering Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 309–318 (2004)Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: The TAME project: towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(6), 758–773 (1988)Barkmeyer, E.J., Feeney, A.B., Denno, P., Flater, D.W., Libes, D.E., Steves, M.P., Wallace, E.K.: Concepts for Automating Systems Integration NISTIR 6928. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (2003)Bosch, J.: Design and Use of Software Architectures. Adopting and Evolving Product-Line Approach. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (2000)Botterweck, G., O’Brien, L., Thiel, S.: Model-driven derivation of product architectures. In: 22th Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, New York, USA, pp. 469–472 (2007)Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented software architecture, vol. 1: A System of Patterns. Wiley (1996)Cabello, M.E., Ramos, I., Gómez, A., Limón, R.: Baseline-Oriented Modeling: An MDA Approach Based on Software Product Lines for the Expert Systems Development. In: 1st Asia Conference on Intelligent Information and Database Systems, Vietnam (2009)Carifio, J., Perla, R.J.: Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences 3(3), 106–116 (2007)Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2007)Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: A progress report. In: Int. Workshop on Software Factories, San Diego-CA (2005)Datorro, J.: Convex Optimization & Euclidean Distance Geometry. Meboo Publishing (2005)Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)Douglass, B.P.: Real-Time Design Patterns: Robust Scalable Architecture for Real-Time Systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)Feiler, P.H., Gluch, D.P., Hudak, J.: The Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL): An Introduction. Tech. Report CMU/SEI-2006-TN-011. SEI, Carnegie Mellon University (2006)Gómez, A., Ramos, I.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and model-driven engineering: Fitting them together. In: 4th Int. Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software Intensive Systems, Linz, Austria (2010)Gonzalez-Huerta, J., Insfran, E., Abrahao, S.: A Multimodel for Integrating Quality Assessment in Model-Driven Engineering. In: 8th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2012), Lisbon, Portugal, September 3-6 (2012)Gonzalez-Huerta, J., Insfran, E., Abrahao, S., McGregor, J.D.: Non-functional Requirements in Model-Driven Software Product Line Engineering. In: 4th Int. Workshop on Non-functional System Properties in Domain Specific Modeling Languages, Insbruck, Austria (2012)Guana, V., Correal, V.: Variability quality evaluation on component-based software product lines. In: 15th Int. Software Product Line Conference, Munich, Germany, vol. 2, pp. 19.1–19.8 (2011)Insfrán, E., Abrahão, S., González-Huerta, J., McGregor, J.D., Ramos, I.: A Multimodeling Approach for Quality-Driven Architecture Derivation. In: 21st Int. Conf. on Information Systems Development (ISD 2012), Prato, Italy (2012)ISO/IEC 25000:2005, Software Engineering. Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation SQuaRE (2005)Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, ADA382629). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2000), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports/00tr004.htmlKim, T., Ko, I., Kang, S., Lee, D.: Extending ATAM to assess product line architecture. In: 8th IEEE Int. Conference on Computer and Information Technology, Sydney, Australia, pp. 790–797 (2008)Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L., Hoaglin, D.C., Rosenber, J.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8) (2002)Kruchten, P.B.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley (1999)Martensson, F.: Software Architecture Quality Evaluation. Approaches in an Industrial Context. Ph. D. thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden (2006)Maxwell, K.: Applied Statistics for Software Managers. Software Quality Institute Series. Prentice-Hall (2002)Olumofin, F.G., Mišic, V.B.: A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology 49, 309–323 (2007)Perovich, D., Rossel, P.O., Bastarrica, M.C.: Feature model to product architectures: Applying MDE to Software Product Lines. In: IEEE/IFIP & European Conference on Software Architecture, Helsinki, Findland, pp. 201–210 (2009)Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the requirements process. ACM Press, New York (1999)Roos-Frantz, F., Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Heuer, A., Lauenroth, K.: Quality-aware analysis in product line engineering with the orthogonal variability model. Software Quality Journal (2011), doi:10.1007/s11219-011-9156-5Saaty, T.L.: The Analytical Hierarchical Process. McGraw- Hill, New York (1990)Taher, L., Khatib, H.E., Basha, R.: A framework and QoS matchmaking algorithm for dynamic web services selection. In: 2nd Int. Conference on Innovations in Information Technology, Dubai, UAE (2005)Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Weslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer (2000

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

Driving Co-Created Value Through Local Tourism Srvice Systems (LTSS) in Tourism Sector

Purpose – Our purpose is to qualify Local Tourism Area (LTA) as Local Tourism Service System (LTSS), glocal network for value co-creation and equifinality for stakeholders. We identify the conditions and the critical aspects useful for the start-up and the development of a network characterized by a strong international competitiveness. Methodology/approach – Our methodology integrates Service Science Management and Engineering and Viable Systems Approach. SSME is useful for qualifying a Service System; VSA is helpful to interpret tourism territories as Systems. SSME&VSA highlights Structural Variety and Systems Relationship that qualify a LTSS as a long lasting network. Findings – This work provides a general cognitive scheme useful for interpreting LTA as LTSS. So, we can consider a new managing perspective and new ways for developing local service systems according to a governance process based on information sharing, consonance of interpretative patterns and resonance of value categories. Practical implications – Our perspective induces new way of thinking about local systems: territory is not a simply “product” - as static views suggest - but a “service” according to a dynamic view. So, we can see how government guides the development of LTS ensuring distinctive brand destination and place reputation in tourism market. Originality/value – Our paper offers a schema for directing decision makers according to LTA as a LTSS. In the next future, the qualification of the LTSS could be useful to generate a method for measuring the drivers of our model, according to the harmonization among the different governance and the improving reputation of entire servic

Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models

The connection of resources, data, and knowledge through communication technology plays a vital role in current collaborative design methodologies and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems, as these elements act as channels for information and meaning. Despite significant advances in the area of PLM, most communication tools are used as separate services that are disconnected from existing development environments. Consequently, during a communication session, the specific elements being discussed are usually not linked to the context of the discussion, which may result in important information getting lost or becoming difficult to access. In this paper, we present a method to add synchronous communication functionality to a PLM system based on annotated information embedded in the CAD model. This approach provides users a communication channel that is built directly into the CAD interface and is valuable when individuals need to be contacted regarding the annotated aspects of a CAD model. We present the architecture of a new system and its integration with existing PLM systems, and describe the implementation details of an annotation-based video conferencing module for a commercial CAD application.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the FEDER Funds, through the ANNOTA project (Ref. TIN2013-46036-C3-1-R).Camba, JD.; Contero, M.; Salvador Herranz, GM.; Plumed, R. (2016). Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 25(2):142-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-016-5305-5S142158252Abrahamson, S., Wallace, D., Senin, N. & Sferro, P. (2000). Integrated design in a service marketplace. Computer-Aided Design, 32(2):97–107.Ahmed, S. (2005). Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge. Design Studies, 26:565–592.Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53:1029–1037.Ameri, F. & Dutta, D. (2005). Product lifecycle management: closing the knowledge loops. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2(5):577–590.Anderson, A.H., Smallwood, L., MacDonald, R., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. & O'Malley, C. (2000). Video data and video links in mediated communication: what do users value? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1):165–187.Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A. & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind–creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7(1): 84–113.Barley, W.C., Leonardi, P.M., & Bailey, D.E. (2012). Engineering objects for collaboration: strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Communication Research, 38:280–308.Boujut, J.F. & Dugdale, J. (2006). Design of a 3D annotation tool for supporting evaluation activities in engineering design. Cooperative Systems Design, COOP 6:1–8.Camba, J., Contero, M., Johnson, M. & Company, P. (2014). Extended 3D annotations as a new mechanism to explicitly communicate geometric design intent and increase CAD model reusability. Computer-Aided Design, 57:61–73.Camba, J., Contero, M. & Salvador-Herranz, G. (2014). Speak with the annotator: promoting interaction in a knowledge-based CAD environment built on the extended annotation concept. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 196–201.Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M. & Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4):279–306.Danesi, F., Gardan, N. & Gardan, Y. (2006). Collaborative Design: from Concept to Application. Geometric Modeling and Imaging—New Trends, 90–96.Durstewitz, M., Kiefner, B., Kueke, R., Putkonen, H., Repo, P. & Tuikka, T. (2002). Virtual collaboration environment for aircraft design. Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference on Information Visualisation, 502–507.Fisher, D., Brush, A.J., Gleave, E. & Smith, M.A. (2006). Revisiting Whittaker and Sidner’s email overload ten years later. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, BanffFonseca, M.J., Henriques, E., Silva, N., Cardoso, T. & Jorge, J.A. (2006). A collaborative CAD conference tool to support mobile engineering. Rapid Product Development (RPD’06), Marinha Grande, Portugal.Frechette, S.P. (2011). Model based enterprise for manufacturing. Proceedings of the 44th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems.Fu, W.X., Bian, J. & Xu, Y.M. (2013). A video conferencing system for collaborative engineering design. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 344:246–252.Fuh, J.Y.H. & Li, W.D. (2005). Advances in collaborative CAD: the-state-of-the art. Computer-Aided Design, 37:571–581.Fussell, S.R., Kraut, R.E. & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21–30.Gajewska, H., Kistler, J., Manasse, M.S. & Redell, D. (1994). Argo: a system for distributed collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM Second International Conference on Multimedia, San Francisco, CA, USA. 433–440.Gantz, J., Reinsel, D., Chute, C., Schlichting, W., Mcarthur, J., Minton, S., Xheneti, I., Toncheva, A. & Manfrediz, A. (2007). The expanding digital universe: a forecast of worldwide information growth through 2010. IDC, Massachusetts.Gowan, Jr. J.A. & Downs, J.M. (1994). Video conferencing human-machine interface: a field study. Information and Management, 27(6):341–356.Gupta, A., Mattarelli, E., Seshasai, S. & Broschak, J. (2009). Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: towards the 24-h knowledge factory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18:147–161.Hickson, I. (2009). The Web Socket Protocol IETF, Standards Track.Hong, J., Toye, G. & Leifer, L.J. (1996). Engineering design notebook for sharing and reuse. Computers in Industry, 29:27–35.Isaacs, E.A. & Tang, J.C. (1994). What video can and cannot do for collaboration: a case study. Multimedia Systems, 2(2):63–73.Karsenty, L. (1999). Cooperative work and shared visual context: an empirical study of comprehension problems in side-by-side and remote help dialogues. Human Computer Interaction, 14(3): 283–315.Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Collaboration patterns in computer supported collaborative designing. Design Studies, 25:351–371.Leenders, R.T.A., Van Engelen, J.M. & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1):69–92.Levitt, R.E., Jin, Y. & Dym, C.L. (1991). Knowledge-based support for management of concurrent, multidisciplinary design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 5(2):77–95.Li, C., McMahon, C. & Newnes, L. (2009). Annotation in product lifecycle management: a review of approaches. Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2009. Vol. 2. New York: ASME, 797–806.Li, W.D., Lu, W.F., Fuh, J.Y. & Wong, Y.S. (2005). Collaborative computer-aided design-research and development status. Computer-Aided Design, 37(9):931–940.Londono, F., Cleetus, K.J., Nichols, D.M., Iyer, S., Karandikar, H.M., Reddy, S.M., Potnis, S.M., Massey, B., Reddy, A. & Ganti, V. (1992). Coordinating a virtual team. CERC-TR-RN-92-005, Concurrent Engineering Research Centre, West Virginia University, West Virginia.Lubell, J., Chen, K., Horst, J., Frechette, S., & Huang, P. (2012). Model based enterprise/technical data package summit report. NIST Technical Note, 1753.May, A. & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(3):171–186.Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M. & Meader, D.K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Ping-Hung, H., Mishra, C.S. & Gobeli, D.H. (2003). The return on R&D versus capital expenditures in pharmaceutical and chemical industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50:141–150.Sharma, A. (2005). Collaborative product innovation: integrating elements of CPI via PLM framework. Computer-Aided Design, 37(13):1425–1434.Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B. & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 Years on from Gibis and Qoc. Rationale Management in Software Engineering, 111–132.Siltanen, P. & Valli, S. (2013). Web-based 3D Mediated Communication in Manufacturing Industry. Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multidisciplinary Environment, 1181–1192. Springer London.Stark, J. (2011). Product Lifecycle Management. 1–16. Springer London.Tavcar, J., Potocnik, U. & Duhovnik, J. (2013). PLM used as a backbone for concurrent engineering in supply chain. Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, 681–692.Tay, F.E.H. & Ming, C. (2001). A shared multi-media design environment for concurrent engineering over the internet. Concurrent Engineering, 9(1):55–63.Tay, F.E.H. & Roy, A. (2003). CyberCAD: a collaborative approach in 3D-CAD technology in a multimedia-supported environment. Computers in Industry, 52(2):127–145.Toussaint, J. & Cheng, K. (2002). Design agility and manufacturing responsiveness on the web. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(5):328–339.Tsoi, K.N. & Rahman, S.M. (1996). Media-on-demand multimedia electronic mail: a tool for collaboration on the web. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing.Upton, D.M. & Mcafee, A. (1999). The Real Virtual Factory. Harvard Business School Press, 69–89.Vila, C., Estruch, A., Siller, H.R., Abellán, J.V. & Romero, F. (2007). Workflow methodology for collaborative design and manufacturing. Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering 42–49, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Wasiak, J., Hicks, B., Newnes, L., Dong, A., & Burrow, L. (2010). Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work. Research in Engineering Design, 21(1):43–64.Wasko, M.M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 29:35–57.Yang, Q.Z., Zhang, Y., Miao, C.Y. & Shen, Z.Q. (2008). Semantic annotation of digital engineering resources for multidisciplinary design collaboration. ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 617–624. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.You, C.F. & Chao, S.N. (2006). Multilayer architecture in collaborative environment. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 14(4):273–281.Yuan, Y.C., Fulk, J., Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37: 20–47

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