An approach to build consistent software architecture diagrams using devops system descriptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
System architecture diagrams play an essential role in understanding system architecture. They encourage more active discussion among participants and make it easier to recall system details. However, system architecture diagrams often diverge from the software. As a result, they can interfere with the understanding and maintenance of the software. We propose an approach to build system architecture diagrams using DevOps system descriptors to improve the consistency of architecture diagrams. To produce our approach, we survey problems with architecture diagrams in the software industry, developing guidelines for creating architecture diagrams. Next, we produce a taxonomy for system descriptor concepts and a process to convert system descriptors into architecture diagrams. We evaluate our approach through a case study. In this case study, we defined a Docker Compose descriptor for a newsfeed system and transformed it into a system architectural diagram using the proposed approach. Our results indicate that, currently, system descriptors generally lead to consistent diagrams only to a limited extent. However, the case study's observations indicate that the proposed approach is promising and demonstrates that system descriptors have the potential to create more consistent architectural diagrams. Further evaluation in controlled and empirical experiments is necessary to test our hypothesis in more detail.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".