Article Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis Share on Authors: Rick Kazman Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAView Profile , Mario Barbacci Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAView Profile , Mark Klein Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAView Profile , S. Jeromy Carrière Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAView Profile , Steven G. Woods Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAView Profile Authors Info & Claims ICSE '99: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineeringMay 1999 Pages 54–63https://doi.org/10.1145/302405.302452Online:16 May 1999Publication History 103citation1,056DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations103Total Downloads1,056Last 12 Months16Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access

The article describes our view on the importance of exchanging not only system information in the reengineering community, but also exchanging a description of the semantics that underly the extraction, annotation and augmentation of the information one wishes to exchange. The semantics are more than the schema of the information exchanged. They include the rationale for the structure of the schema itself. We also make the point that we need to be explicit about what it means to reconstruct architecture, in terms of the architectural semantics that we are hypothesizing for the system being analyzed. We present the discussion in the context of a revised set of levels based on the CORUM II model.

In this paper, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the AbTweakplanning system, a test bed for studying and teaching concepts in partial‐order planning, abstraction, and search control. We start by extending the hierarchical, precondition‐elimination abstraction of ABSTRIPS to partial‐order‐based, least‐commitment planners such as Tweak. The resulting system, AbTweak, illustrates the advantages of using abstraction to improve the efficiency of search. We show that by protecting a subset of abstract conditions achieved so far, and by imposing a bias on search toward deeper levels in a hierarchy, planning efficiency can be greatly improved. Finally, we relate AbTweakto other planning systems SNLP, ALPINE, and SIPE by exploring their similarities and differences.