USDA/ARS

Conservation Planning Support System

Software Architecture Document

Version <1.1>
Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

Revision History
Date Version Description
<05/15/2003> <1.0> First Draft of the Software Architecture Doc.
<12/04/2003> <1.1> This revised version contains a more complete portion for each of the
design states.

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 2 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Purpose 4
1.2 Scope 4
1.3 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 4
1.4 References 4
1.5 Overview 4

2. Architectural Goals and Constraints 5

3. Architectural Representation 5
3.1 Architectural Views 5
3.2 Architectural Design Patterns 6
3.3 Architectural Style 6
3.4 Architectural Process 6

4. Architectural View Decomposition 8

4.1 Use-Case View 8
4.1.1 Use-Case Realizations 8
Formulate Alternatives 9
Evaluate Alternatives 9
Make Decision 9
4.2 Design View 9
4.2.1 Overview 9
4.3 Process View 9
4.4 Component View 10
4.4.1 Overview 10
4.5 Deployment View 10

5. Size and Performance 10

6. Quality 10

7. Bibliography 10

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 3 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

CPSS Software Architecture Document

1. Introduction
This introduction provides an overview of the entire Software Architecture Document for the Conservation Planning
Support System. It includes the purpose, scope, definitions, acronyms, abbreviations, references, and overview of
the system.
1.1 Purpose
This document provides an architectural overview of the Conservation Planning Support System (CPSS).
The primary purpose of the Conservation Planning Support System (CPSS) is to satisfy the agricultural
needs of producers and soil conservationists.

This document is intended to capture and convey the significant architectural decisions which have been
made in designing and building the system. It is a way by which the systems architect and others involved
in the project can better understand the problems to be solved and how it will be represented with this
system.

The following diagram shows the different steps that will be taken to set and get information from the
MARIA database effort:

1.2 Scope
The scope of this document is the implementation of the CPSS which consist of steps 1 through 9 of the
NRCS National Planning Process.

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 4 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

1.3 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

See the System Glossary.
1.4 References
As explained below, the top-level composition of the Conservation Planning Support System, such as the
use case models, uses the concepts described in the books: Advanced Use Case Modeling; Frank Armour
and Granville Miller.
The reference book used to model all the architectural diagrams was: The Unified Modeling Language
Reference Manual; James Rumbaugh, Ivar Jacobson, and Grady Booch.
Some concepts regarding the documentation of software architecture were obtained from the book:
Documenting Software Architecture-Views and Beyond; Paul Clemens, Felix Bachmann, Len Bass, David
Garlan, James Iveers, Reed Little, Robert Nord, and Judith Stafford.
1.5 Overview
This document consists of 7 sections, which are described below:
Section 1 is simply an introduction to the software architecture of the CPSS.
Section 2 addresses the goals and constraints of the systems architecture
Section 3 describes the architectural representation of the system.
Section 4 describes the five views in which the system documentation is divided by following the
Rational Unified Process (RUP). A visual representation of these five views can be seen in the
Software System Development Diagram.
Section 5 of this document talks about other system considerations such as size and performance of the
system.
Section 6 describes some system quality issues.
Section 7 is a bibliography of the references used to create this document.

2. Architectural Goals and Constraints

The CPSS architecture has been designed with the following objectives in mind:

1. To facilitate the decision making process for producers by incorporating information on

sustainability, offsite effects, and profitability.
2. To help soil conservationists explain how management changes affect the natural systems
production, sustainability, and water quality effects.
3. To allow producers to enhance their agricultural planning by giving them a logical decision based
on available science.
4. To allow producers to become more profitable from their crops since a better plan will have been
implemented.

The major design and implementation constraints for the system are:

1. Simplicity
2. Flexibility

A full list of the system requirements can be seen in the High Level Requirements document.

3. Architectural Representation
3.1 Architectural Views

Modeling, implementing, and documenting a system requires that the system be viewed from different
perspectives. Because of this, the architecture of the CPSS will be represented in a five view approach: Use
Case View, Design View, Process View, Component View, and Deployment View. The following is a brief
description for each of the views:

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 5 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

Design View Component

View

Use Case
View
Process View Deployment
View

Use Case View: the main purpose of the use case view is to define main drivers of the system, which are
the system requirements.

Design View: this view contains any system definitions as well as class and object diagrams which depict
the services that the system will provide to its end-users.

Process View: this view will display the processes that form the systems mechanism. These will be
represented as collaboration, sequence, and activity diagrams.

Component View: this view will include system and user interface specifications, meaning, the different
components that make up the system.

Deployment View: this view will depict how the different systems hardware nodes will come to life
together as well as how each of the hardware nodes will be installed and deployed.

As seen in the above diagram, requirements, or the use case view, are the main driving force to this and any
software architecture system.

A more detailed map to these five models can be found in the Software System Development Diagram.

3.2 Architectural Design Patterns

The design pattern used to create the CPSS is the MVC (Model View Controller) design pattern. The MVC
design patter clearly separated the web applications behavior, presentation and control. The modularity of
this design pattern allows for easier code reuse, more centralized control, bugs easier to track down and
code easier to modify. The presentation, or view, of the CPSS has been implemented keeping in mind the
Model 2 usage pattern, which makes use of servlets as front controllers and maps incoming request to
specific operation and selects views based on the model and session state. In some steps of the application
the Model 1 pattern, in which a servlets is not used as the front controller, is also used. Some of the sections
of the CPSS where Model 1 architecture is used are the DB Input For and the CPPE tool. These tools are
very simple as far as navigation and a front controller is not needed since the controller is implied through
the higher level container (the CPSS).

3.3 Architectural Style

As with any other things, a style may be used to satisfy any functional, non-functional or aesthetic needs in
a software system. The CPSS, in particular, follows the three-tier architectural style: presentation tier,
business tier, and data tier. The following is a simple description of what will be included in each of the
tiers:

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 6 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

Presentation Tier
Business Tier
Data Tier

Presentation Tier: used to format and present the information to the user.

Business Tier: used to implement the logic that will drive the system and the reason why the system exists.

Data Tier: in charge of storing the data (databases) and other external services that the system may use.

3.4 Architectural Process

CPSS follows the Rational Unified Process (RUP), whose goal is to enable the production of the highest
quality software that meets end user needs within a predictable schedule and budget. The RUP is an
iterative process divided into four phases: inception (the establishment of the projects business case),
elaboration (establishment of project plan and system architecture), construction (the system
implementation), and transition (system deployment).

Workflow Phase

Inception Elaboration Construction Transition

Planning

Analysis
&
Design
Design

Implementation

Testing

Preliminary Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4

Iteration

During the inception phase, the business case and vision documents will be defined for the CPSS. The
business case includes the criteria needed for the successful development of the system, a budget estimate
of the resources needed to complete the system, and a schedule of the major milestones. The vision
document defines the projects problem to be solved, the projects purpose and the projects major
stakeholders. During this phase, a PowerPoint presentation for the entire system will be created which will
serve as a proof-of-concept for the system. This presentation will be reviewed by the major stakeholders
for soundness and feasibility.

During the elaboration phase, the CPSS will have an easy to understand software architectural foundation
and an implemented project plan (this was done first). As previously described, the architectural
foundation is composed of a set of UML diagrams that entirely describes the systems functionality.

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 7 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

During the construction phase, the CPPS will be incrementally and iteratively developed and tested. The
development implies the complete coverage of the software requirements by following the different UML
diagrams defined in the previous phase. At the end of this phase, the CPSS should be a completely
designed, implemented, and tested system that is ready to be deployed for use.

Deployment of the CPSS will occur during the transition phase where the system will be placed on a server
for the use of producers, soil conservationists, and database administrators. Once the beta release of the
CPSS has been released, any system issues that arise will be logged and corrected and a new system
version will be released. This process will continue until all new and legacy system requirements have
been satisfied.

4. Architectural View Decomposition

4.1 Use-Case View
The general functionality of the CPSS can be seen in the following diagram:

Make Farm Plans

Phase I
Identify Problems
and Opportunities
Watershed
Group

Determine Objectives

Inventory Resources

Analyze Resource
Area Data
Conservationist

Phase II
Soil Formulate Alternatives
Decision Maker
Conservationist (Define Management

System)

Evaluate

Alternatives

Make Decision

Phase III
Farmer Rancher
Implement
the Plan

Evaluate
Make
the Plan
Decisions

The CPSS will implement the architecturally-significant subset of the use cases specified above, which

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 8 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

include the items in Phase II. These use cases are described in the following section.

All implemented use cases have been associated in the Step 5 Base Use Cases.doc.
4.1.1 Use-Case Realizations
This section illustrates how the software actually works by giving a example on how some use-cases
will be used within the system. This section will also examine how the various design structures of the
CPPE contribute to its functionality.

-Under Development!
4.1.1.1 Architecturally Significant Use Cases

The architecturally-significant use cases are those that exercise the most critical parts of the system
architecture and demonstrate the core system functionality. In the case of the CPSS, the architecturally
significant use cases that the ARS will be developing will be those that exist in Phase II of the NPPH:
Formulate Alternatives: shows which management alternatives are available for the producer
Evaluate Alternatives: shows a set of practical and evaluated CMS alternatives for the producer
Make Decision: rank alternatives and select one to implement

These and other sub-use cases are shown and briefly described below:

Formulate
Soil Alternatives Decision Maker
Conservationist (Define Management

System)

Evaluate Alternatives

Make Decisions

Formulate Alternatives
Brief Description: The Soil Conservationist develops alternatives that will achieve the objectives of the
client, solve the identified problems, take advantage of opportunities, and prevent additional problems from
occurring.

Evaluate Alternatives
Brief Description: The effects of each alternative are evaluated and the impacts are described.

Make Decision
Brief Description: The producer determines which alternative(s) to implement and the Soil Conservationist
prepares the necessary documentation.

4.2 Design View

This section describes the logical structure of the system as well as any definitions or acronyms. It starts
from the overview of the architecture and then presents its key structural and behavioral elements such as
usage and dependency. The documents that make up the logical view for the CPSS are:

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 9 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

System Glossary.doc
Static Object Model Diagram.doc

4.2.1 Overview
This subsection will describe the overall decomposition of the CPSS design model as well as the
interactivity that happens between components.

4.3 Process View

The process view will describe the systems decomposition as well as the forms of communication between
processes, like message passing, activity between components, and message sequencing.
The documents that are incorporated into this view are:

Collaboration Diagram.doc
Sequence Diagram.doc
Activity Diagram.doc

4.4 Component View

The component view will describe the overall component and subsystem organization of the CPSS. This
document will reside in the Component View folder.
The documents included in this view are the following:
User Interface Specifications.doc
System Interface Specifications.doc
Software Architecture Documentation.doc (this document)

4.4.1 Overview
This subsection will include the various software layers that will exist in the system as well as the
boundaries between these layers.

4.5 Deployment View

The CPSS deployment view of a system shows the physical nodes on which it executes. The CPSS is
comprised of three physical nodes: the browser, the application server, and the database server. The
simplicity of the CPSS physical view can be seen in the diagram below:

Producer Soil Con CPSS, Customer Service MARIA

(Browser) Toolkit (CST) (Data Base)
(Application Server)

5. Size and Performance

The CPSS is far from being finished but the size of the system can be pre-summarized as follows:
Number of use cases implemented: 9

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 10 of 11

Conservation Planning Support System Version: <1.1>

Number of JSP files:

Java-code lines:
Months of labor:

6. Quality
System quality issues or concerns will go here.

7. Bibliography

Frank Armour, Granville Miller. 2000. Advanced Use Case Modeling: Software Systems. Upper Saddle
River, NJ. 425 pages.
Dean Leffingwell, Don Widrig. 2001. Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach.
Indianapolis, IN. 491 pages.

James Rumbaugh, Ivan Jacobson, Grady Booch. 2000. The Unified Modeling Language Reference
Manual. Massachusetts. 550 pages.

Ahuja, L. R., K. W. Rojas, J. D. Hanson, M. J. Shaffer, and L. Ma (eds.). 2000. Root Zone Water Quality
Model. Water Resources Publications LLC. Highlands Ranch, CO. 358 pages.

Hatfield, J.L., J.L. Anderson, E.E. Alberts, T. Prato, D.G. Watts, A. Ward, G. Delin, and R.Swank. 1993.
Management Systems Evaluation AreasAn Overview. Proc. Agricultural Research to Protect Water
Quality. Soil Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. Pp.1-15

Hatfield, J.L., D.B. Jaynes, M.R. Burkart, C.A. Cambardella, T.B. Moorman, J.H. Prueger, and M.A. Smith.
1999. Water Quality in Walnut Creek Watershed: Setting and Farming Practices. J. Environmental Quality.
28: 11-24.

Heilman, P., G. Davis, P. Lawrence, J.L. Hatfield, J. Huddleston. 2002. The Facilitator - An Open Source
Effort to Support Multiobjective Decision Making, Integrated Assessment and Decision Support
Proceedings of the 1st biennial meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society,
Vol. 3: 253-258.

Heilman, P., J.L. Hatfield, M. Adkins, J. Porter and R. Kurth. 2004. Field scale Multiobjective Decision
Making: A Case Study From Western Iowa. Journal of the AWRA, 40 (2) 333:346.

Heilman, P., Hatfield, J.L., Rojas, K., Ma, L., Huddleston, J., Ahuja, L., Adkins, M. 2002. How Good is
Good Enough? What Information is Needed for Agricultural Water Quality Planning and How Can it be
Provided Affordably? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. v. 57(4): 98-105.

Ma, L., L. R. Ahuja, J. C. Ascough, II, M. J. Shaffer, K. W. Rojas, R. W. Malone, and M. R. Cameira. 2000.
Integrating System Modeling with Field Research in Agriculture: Applications of Root Zone Water Quality
Model (RZWQM). Adv. Agron. 71:233-292.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. National Planning Procedures Handbook.

164 pages.

Onstad, C.A., M.R. Burkart, and G.D. Bubenzer. 1991. Agricultural Research to Protect Water Quality. J.
Soil and Water Conserv. 46:184-188.

USDA/ARS, 2017 Page 11 of 11