Project Assignment (1400 words)

Evaluating Alternative Designs Scenario Imagine you are in charge of a small 3-person development group who will be developing a KWIC index generation tool for an online course. Specifically, your product should have the following features:

• It's input will be a group of HTML files representing the online notes from one lecture.

• The titles of each page in the group will be indexed.

• The tool will be run once a week with a new lecture's worth of HTML pages. The tool should add the new index entries to the existing index.

• The output of the indexing tool will be HTML that is ready to post on the web.

• The execution platform will be a Windows 10 PC.

Although this list of features only gives an outline of the requirements for the product, it should give you enough of a feel for the intended use that you can make educated guesses for any questions you run into as you complete the assignment. Feel free to use your best judgement in such a situation. If you have other questions about features, feel free to ask.

Assignment The main task of your assignment is to evaluate the 4 KWIC Index architectures discussed in the Reading 03 reading assignment(Main Program/Subroutine with Shared Data, Abstract Data Types, Implicit Invocation, and Pipes and Filters)

https://www.homeworkmarket.com/questions/short-answers-300-words- 20247215

, and then select the one you believe is best for the scenario outlined above. Write up your results in a short paper (>= 4 pages) that you will turn in. Be sure to include the following elements in your solution:

1. Project Summary: provide a brief description of the requirements for the system you are creating. You can start with the 5 bullets listed above, and extend that with any additional assumptions, features, or restrictions you think up yourself as you proceed through the assignment.

2. Evaluation Criteria: Devise a list of key design decisions (either a choice to support some kind of change, or a choice to commit to something unchangeable) that are relevant to the system at hand. Be specific; something like "support a change in function" is too general-- "support a change from indexing page titles to indexing all words on the page" is better. Your goal is to provide a set of design decisions that is more comprehensive than the list Garlan and Shaw used in Figure 10 on p. 21, and that will provide an effective way to compare the architectures for this specific scenario.

3. Evaluate 4 Architectures: Evaluate each of the 4 architectures against your set of criteria, briefly discussing the strengths or weaknesses it has with respect to each design decision you have chosen.

4. Select the Best: Choose which of the 4 is best suited for use in this hypothetical situation. Justify your choice by drawing on the evaluation you have performed.

5. Conclusions: You may find that your final choice among these 4 candidate architectures still has some shortcomings. In wrapping up your paper, you can identify any weak points in the architecture you have selected that need to be addressed for the project to be a success. You may also make suggestions about alternative architectures that were not considered, or about anything you might change or do differently in your selected architecture for solving the problem.

The bulk of your paper will probably be spent on describing the evaluation criteria and presenting the evaluation of the 4 alternatives.

Assessment The following rubric will be used to assess your work:

Criteria Points

Project Summary 10

points

Excellent: Provides a clear explanation of realistic

features, including significant additional features above

the minimum 5, and providing additional concrete details

about the 5 requirements outlined in the assignment.

10/10

Criteria Points

Realistic assumptions about operating conditions or

expectations of use are clearly communicated.

Good: Provides a clear explanation of realistic

features, including some additions to features above the

minimum 5, and provides concrete elaboration of some of

the 5 requirements outlined in the assignment. Realistic

assumptions about operating conditions or expectations of

use are communicated.

8/10

Satisfactory: Provides a clear explanation of features

that may include minor additions to features above the

minimum 5. Some of the 5 required features may be

elaborated more concretely. Some simple assumptions or

restrictions regarding use of the system are presented.

6/10

Poor: Simply restates the minimum 5 features, without

communicating any significant additional insight into

requirements for the system.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Evaluation criteria 30

points

Excellent: Provides a clear, specific list of evaluation

criteria that is significantly more comprehensive that

the example outlined in the textbook. Criteria are

directly related to the requirements presented in the

summary, and how each criterion can be judged is

explained.

30/30

Good: Provides a clear list of evaluation criteria with

a significant attempt to be comprehensive. Most criteria

are directly related to the requirements presented in the

summary and specific enough to have direct relevance to

the system at hand. How most criteria can be judged is

appropriately explained.

25/30

Criteria Points

Satisfactory: Provides a list of criteria that goes

beyond the basics covered in the case study from the

textbook. Some criteria may be too general, too difficult

to apply, or poorly connected to the requirements

presented in the summary.

20/30

Poor: Simply restates the basic criteria described in

the text without any significant additional

contributions.

10/30

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Evaluation 30

points

Excellent: Explicitly addresses how each of the four

architectures measures up against each criterion you have

developed in a systematic way. Explicit strengths and/or

weaknesses for each architecture are noted for each

evaluation criterion. A table or other mechanism is used

to summarize the results of the evaluation in a concise

way that can be quickly scanned.

30/30

Good: Explicitly addresses how each of the four

architectures measures up against each criterion you have

developed in a systematic way, including a clear

description of the strengths and weaknesses of each of

the four architectures.

25/30

Satisfactory: Explicitly addresses how each of the four

architectures measures up against each criterion you have

developed.

20/30

Poor: Attempts to evaluate the four architectures, but

without any clear connection to the presented evaluation

critieria or any clear summary of strengths and

weaknesses for each architecture.

10/30

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Criteria Points

Selection 10

points

Excellent: An architecture is chosen as best, and a

well-reasoned systematic justification that relies on all

criteria in your evaluation is presented to make a strong

case for your selection.

10/10

Good: An architecture is chosen as best, and a

justification is provided that draws on significant

elements of your evaluation.

8/10

Satisfactory: An architecture is chosen as best. A basic

justification is provided, but it is not directly

connected to the elements of your evaluation.

6/10

Poor: An architecture is chosen as best, but little or

no convincing justification is provided.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Conclusions 10

points

Excellent: In addition to summarizing the selection of

the strongest architecture, the conclusions discuss the

implications of all important weaknesses of that choice

that were identified in the evaluation. The conclusions

point out what requirements changes would invalidate the

architecture choice that was selected and why, as well as

what alternative architecture would then be a better

match. The conclusions provide an appropriate discussion

of ways the risks of changing requirements could be

addressed through possible modifications to the selected

architecture.

10/10

Good: A basic conclusion that restates the architectural

choice is provided. Some weaknesses in the selected

architecture are discussed. Potential changes in

requirements that may result in a change to which

8/10

Criteria Points

architecture is the best fit are also discussed. Possible

modifications to the selected architecture to improve the

way it meets the problem may be included.

Satisfactory: A basic conclusion that restates the

architectural choice is provided. Some weak points in the

selected architecture are discussed.

6/10

Poor: A basic conclusion that restates the architectural

choice is provided.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Writing/Presentation 10

points

Excellent: All writing is clear and readable, without

grammar errors, punctuation errors, or other writing

problems. Figures or summary tables are used

appropriately where they clarify presentation. Clear

headings and a cohesive document organization are used.

The whole document looks like a professionally prepared

report.

10/10

Good: All writing is clear and readable, with only

occasional minor writing errors. An appropriate attempt

is made to use appropriate figures or summary tables

where they help clarify presentation. Clear headings and

a cohesive document organization are used.

8/10

Satisfactory: The document is readable, but some

significant errors appear in the writing and/or

organization. Some parts of the exposition may not

communicate clearly. Summary representations of key

portions of the work may be missing. Clear headings are

used.

6/10

Criteria Points

Poor: The document is readable, but includes significant

errors in both writing and organization that make

portions of the document hard to follow.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Total 100

points