dc.creator | Cañete Valdeón, José Miguel | es |
dc.creator | Ruiz Cortés, Antonio | es |
dc.creator | Toro Bonilla, Miguel | es |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-10-26T10:01:27Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-10-26T10:01:27Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Cañete Valdeón, J.M., Ruiz Cortés, A. y Toro Bonilla, M. (2016). Defeasible Argumentation of Software Architectures. En WICSA 2016: 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (115-121), Venice, Italy: IEEE Computer Society. | |
dc.identifier.isbn | 978-1-5090-2131-4 | es |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11441/65436 | |
dc.description.abstract | Defeasible argumentation is typical of legal and
scientific reasoning. A defeasible argument is one in which
the conclusion can be accepted tentatively in relation with the
evidence known so far, but may need to be retracted as new
evidence comes in. This paper analyses the role of defeasible
argumentation in the explanation and evaluation of architectural
decisions. We analyse technical explanations offered by engineers
at Twitter and eBay about several architectural decisions adopted
in those systems. We generalize these examples in four argumentation
schemes. We also study the typical case of reasoning
with a formal model of an architecture, and we infer a fifth
argumentation scheme. Finally, we apply Hastings’ method of
attaching a set of critical questions to each scheme. We show
that the existence of critical questions reveals that the inferred
schemes are defeasible: in argumentation theory, if a respondent
asks one of the critical questions matching a scheme and the
proponent of an argument fails to offer an adequate answer, the
argument defaults and the conclusion is retracted. This dialogical
structure is the basis of typical architectural evaluations. We
conclude that the provided evidence supports the hypothesis that
defeasible argumentation is employed in architectural evaluation.
In this context, a rich catalogue of argumentation schemes is a
useful tool for the architect to organize his or her reasoning;
critical questions assist the architect in identifying the weak
points of his or her explanations, and provide the evaluation
team with a checklist of issues to be raised. | es |
dc.description.sponsorship | Universidad de Sevilla VPPI-US | es |
dc.format | application/pdf | es |
dc.language.iso | eng | es |
dc.publisher | IEEE Computer Society | es |
dc.relation.ispartof | WICSA 2016: 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (2016), p 115-121 | |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject | Software architectures | es |
dc.subject | Design rationale | es |
dc.subject | Architectural evaluation | es |
dc.subject | Defeasible argumentation | es |
dc.subject | Argumentation schemes | es |
dc.title | Defeasible Argumentation of Software Architectures | es |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject | es |
dcterms.identifier | https://ror.org/03yxnpp24 | |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersion | es |
dc.rights.accessRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | es |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Universidad de Sevilla. Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos | es |
dc.relation.projectID | VPPI-US | es |
dc.relation.publisherversion | http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7516818/ | es |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1109/WICSA.2016.48 | es |
idus.format.extent | 7 p. | es |
dc.publication.initialPage | 115 | es |
dc.publication.endPage | 121 | es |
dc.eventtitle | WICSA 2016: 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture | es |
dc.eventinstitution | Venice, Italy | es |
dc.relation.publicationplace | New York, USA | es |
dc.contributor.funder | Universidad de Sevilla | |