22 February - Monday

Interoperability and Integration
Morven Gentleman and Mary Shaw

Note: In each case, the author is asked not to present the paper as such, but to use the paper and other relevant experience (including reading of the other papers in the session) to comment on these questions:

Plenary session:

(9 min) Introduction to session, including the questions above
(12 min) Butler, based on experience report
(12 min) Gruhn, based on experience report
(12 min) Shaw, based on position paper
(15 min) Discussion

Group session 1 (afternoon):

(12 min) Gentleman, based on experience report
(12 min) Jaktman, based on experience report
(12 min) Kuusela, based on experience report
(12 min) Weil, based on experience report
(12 min) Bourgois, based on position paper
(30 min) Discussion in preparation for evening session

Group session 2 (evening):

Analysis and assessment of software architecture
Rick Kazman and Naftaly Minsky

Plenary session

Presentation of paper by Magee, Pree, and Atlee

Working session For the working sessions we will spend the first session trying to decide what one can analyze an architecture for (i.e. to produce the beginnings of a state-of-the-art report on the spectrum of analysis techniques and their objectives)

We will spend the second session discussing what information needs to be represented in an architecture to enable its analysis for those properties that we identified in the first working session.

In both sessions we will distinguish between what is being analyzed (the architectural description (AD) or the underlying system (S)), and between the nature of the analysis appropriate in each case, as follows:

1: Analysis of the architectural description (AD) for:
a: consistency
b: performance
c: modifiability
d: reliability
e: security
f: liveness
g: . . .

2: Analysis of the underlying system (S), with respect to the AD.
a: verification that the AD is satisfied by S.
b: enforcement of AD on S
c: Synthesis of aspects of S according to AD..
d: (anything else??)

Models of Software Architectures
Don Batory and Ric Holt

Format: presentations will be 20 minutes each, with 10 minute discussions

Authors will answer questions specific to their work, plus some general questions:
Plenary Session Working Session #1
Working Session #2

Discussions/themes raised in the plenary and WS#1 will continue in this session.

23 February -- Tuesday

Product Lines
Christine Hofmeister and Henk Obbink

Plenary session

Introduce two discussion topics, define terms (5 min)
1. Evaluation of Product Line and Reference Architectures 2. Evolution of Product Lines Group session

1. Evaluation of Product Line and Reference Architectures panel (1 hr -- Each panelist gets 10 min to give an overview of their architecture.) 2. Evolution of Product Lines (1/2 hr)

Dealing with systematic evolution of productlines is a very difficult topic. Many of the changes during the lifetime of a productline could have a significant architectural impact. Analizing the impacts of the following changes: could be very useful. The goal of this working session is to investigate the practices that exist to deal with these changes in a systematic way.

3. discussion, preparation of summary points

Style WG
Dewayne Perry and David Rosenblum

Plenary Session

Style WG - Discussion

We will cover the questsions: We will summarize our findings for the working group as a set of research issues and goals - ie a research agenda for architectural patterns and styles.

Techniques and Methods Working Group
Frances Paulisch and Will Tracz

Plenary Session

This WG will focus the processes and players (stakeholders) that support the creation, use, and maintenance of software architectures.

1) State the scope of the working group as described above.
2) Summarize the relevant points in the 5 experience papers and 1 paper that were deemed by the PC to fit in our WG.
3) Propose/reuse a framework of stakeholders and issues (using Boehm's Table 1 as a start) and sketch out a "super-process" model/picture that shows where styles, models, ADLs, analysis, interoperability, product lines all fit together.
4) Introduce the objective of our working group session (see below).

Working Group Session:

During our 2.5 hours we will address 5 or 6 carefully prepared and partially answered questions related to: Note: this includes introduction of new tools, processes, training, etc.

Dewayne E. Perry - This information last updated January 1999
Copyright © 1998. All rights reserved.