<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
         xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
         xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">




    



<channel rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/search_rss">
  <title>PUT Software Engineering Team</title>
  <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl</link>
  
  <description>
    
            These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 6.
        
  </description>
  
  
  
  
  <image rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/logo.png"/>

  <items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/indtroducing-atam-with-technical-drama"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/transactions-in-use-cases-nfr-and-architectural-decisions"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/incremental-architecture-refinement"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-cee-set09-dd-repo"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-09-adapt"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/michalik-ICSE08"/>
        
    </rdf:Seq>
  </items>

</channel>

    <item rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/indtroducing-atam-with-technical-drama">        <title>Indtroducing ATAM with Technical Drama</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/indtroducing-atam-with-technical-drama</link>        <description>This blog entry presents Technical Drama knowledge transfer approach, its application for teaching ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Evaluation Method) and summarizes the results we obtained in two case studies - at university and in software companies.</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>skopczynska</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>architectural knowledge</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>atam</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>design decision</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>software architecture</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>knowledge transfer</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2011-11-04T10:04:36Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/transactions-in-use-cases-nfr-and-architectural-decisions">        <title>Transactions in Use Cases, Non-functional Requirements, and Architectural Decisions</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/transactions-in-use-cases-nfr-and-architectural-decisions</link>        <description>Architectural decisions are usually considered to be influenced mainly by non-functional requirements (NFRs). It is difficult to disagree with such thesis. However, some of the decisions are not directly driven by NFRs, but by the functionality of the system. It can also happen that some of the NFRs are not explicitly defined. In this entry, you can find a checklist containing 20 questions regarding functional requirements that can help you investigate required capabilities of a system architecture.</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>mochodek</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>requirements engineering</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architectural knowledge</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>use cases</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2010-09-04T12:25:44Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/incremental-architecture-refinement">        <title>Incremental architecture refinement</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/knowledge-base/software-engineering-blog/incremental-architecture-refinement</link>        <description>One of the topic we are working on is software architecture evaluation. The incremental architecture evaluation approach was presented at CEE-SET'09 conference. If you would like to know the details about the approach read this article.</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>bmichalik</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>architectural knowledge</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>iso9126</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>software architecture</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>adapt</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>atam</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2009-10-30T11:14:00Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-cee-set09-dd-repo">        <title>Towards Decision Centric Repository of  Architectural Knowledge</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-cee-set09-dd-repo</link>        <description>Architectural design and design decisions are the key components of architectural knowledge. However, concerns, rationales, and risks should be also captured to prevent knowledge vaporization. So, how to deal with architectural knowledge in incremental knowledge renement? We believe that usage of the knowledge repository system can support architecture evolution. In this paper, a model of knowledge repository is presented. In this model, the decision-centric approach is complemented with the architectural views to support indirect interrelations between design decisions. Support for agile development was one of the key aspects of the model design, therefore knowledge vaporisation might be reduced.</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>bmichalik</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>architectural knowledge</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>software architecture</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>adapt</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>knowledge transfer</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2010-01-22T15:11:50Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Inproceedings Reference</dc:type>    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-09-adapt">        <title>Incremental Architecture Refinement</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/bmichalik-09-adapt</link>        <description>In many contemporary projects, software architecture is a result of a knowledge discovery process and it is time consuming. To make the process more effective we propose a suite of short workshops that streamline the architecture refinement process. Each workshop is a central point of a corresponding architectural increment. The workshops can be easily adjusted to the process needs. The described approach is a result of our experience with using ATAM as an architecture evaluation method and it has been tried out in the industrial settings.</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>mochodek</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>iso9126</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>quality attributes</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>software architecture</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>adapt</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>atam</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2009-11-05T19:35:22Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Inproceedings Reference</dc:type>    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1368088.1368193">        <title>3-Step Knowledge Transition: a Case Study on Architecture Evaluation</title>        <link>http://se.cs.put.poznan.pl/publications/michalik-ICSE08</link>        <description>Software Engineering is developing very fast. To keep up with the changes, software companies need effective methods of knowledge transfer. In the paper a 3-step approach to knowledge transfer, called Technical Drama, is  presented. The paper is focused on transferring knowledge concerning architecture evaluation, but the approach could also be applied to transferring knowledge concerning inspections, testing etc. It is claimed in the paper that the Technical Drama can be useful in the industrial context (two case studies are described) as well as at university (then a kind of software studio is required)</description>        <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>        <dc:creator>mochodek</dc:creator>        <dc:rights></dc:rights>                    <dc:subject>software architecture</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>atam</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>architecture evaluation</dc:subject>                    <dc:subject>knowledge transfer</dc:subject>                <dc:date>2009-08-17T13:19:07Z</dc:date>        <dc:type>Inproceedings Reference</dc:type>    </item>



</rdf:RDF>
