Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages

IET Software

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 281-302

  Heymans, P ^a   Schobbens, P Y ^a   Trigaux, J C ^a   Bontemps, Y ^a   Matulevicius R ^a   Classen, A ^a  

^a University of Namur   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY; LINGUISTICS; RHENIUM; SEMANTICS;

(OTDR) TECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE SEMANTICS; DIAGRAM LANGUAGES; DOMAIN ANALYSIS (DA); FEATURE DIAGRAMS; FEATURE-ORIENTED; FORMAL PROPERTIES; GENERAL METHOD; LANGUAGES (TRADITIONAL); SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINE (SPL); VISUAL LANGUAGES;

QUERY LANGUAGES;

EID: 45849133761     PISSN: 17518806     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1049/iet-sen:20070055     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Clements, P.C., and Northrop, L.: ' Software product lines: practices and patterns ', SEI Series in Software Engineering, (Addison-Wesley, 2001)
2. Foreman, J.: ' Product line based software development - significant results, future challenge ', Software Technology Conf., Salt Lake City, UT, USA, April, 23, 1996
3. Pohl, K., Bockle, G., and Van Der Linden, F.: ' Software product line engineering: foundations, principles and techniques ', (Springer, 2005)
4. ' Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study ', Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, November, 1990, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
5. Cohen, S., Tekinerdogan, B., and Czarnecki, K.: ' A case study on requirements specification: driver monitor ', Proc. Workshop on Techniques for Exploiting Commonality through Variability Management at the Second Int. Conf. Software Product Lines (SPLC'02), 2002
6. Bontemps, Y., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Trigaux, J.-C.: ' Semantics of FODA feature diagrams ', Proc. Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation: Towards Tool Support, Boston, August, 2004, p. 48-58
7. Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C., and Bontemps, Y.: ' Generic semantics of feature diagrams ', Comput. Netw., 2007, p. 456-479
8. Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C., and Bontemps, Y.: ' Feature diagrams: a survey and a formal semantics ', Proc. 14th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE'06), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, September, 2006, p. 139-148
9. Kang, K.C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., and Huh, M.: ' FORM: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures ', Ann. Softw. Eng., 1998, 5, p. 143-168 1022-7091
10. Griss, M., Favaro, J., and D'Alessandro, M.: ' Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB ', Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Software Reuse (ICSR'98), Vancouver, BC, Canada, June, 1998, p. 76-85
11. Eisenecker, U.W., and Czarnecki, K.: ' Generative programming: methods, tools, and applications ', (Addison-Wesley, 2000)
12. Eriksson, M., Börstler, J., and Borg, K.: ' The PLUSS approach - domain modeling with features, use cases and use case realizations ', Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Software Product Lines (SPLC'05), 2005, p. 33-44
13. Riebisch, M., Böllert, K., Streitferdt, D., and Philippow, I.: ' Extending feature diagrams with UML multiplicities ', Proc. 6th Conf. Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT '02), Pasadena, CA, June, 2002
14. Riebisch, M.: ' Towards a more precise definition of feature models ', Position Paper in Modelling Variability for Object-oriented Product Lines, 2003
15. Van Gurp, J., Bosch, J., and Svahnberg, M.: ' On the notion of variability in software product lines ', Proc. Working IEEE/IFIP Conf. Software Architecture (WICSA'01), 2001
16. Moody, D.L.: ' What makes a good diagram? Improving the cognitive effectiveness of diagrams in IS development ', Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Information Systems Development (ISD'06), 2006
17. Trigaux, J.-C., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Classen, A.: ' Comparative semantics of feature diagrams: FFD vs vDFD ', Proc. Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, September, 2006
18. Van Deursen, A., and Klint, P.: ' Domain-specific language design requires feature descriptions ', J. Comput. Inf. Technol., 2002, 10, (1), p. 1-17
19. Mannion, M.: ' Using first-order logic for product line model validation ', Proc. 2nd Softw. Product Line Conf. (SPLC'02), San Diego, CA, 2002, Springer, 2379, p. 176-187, LNCS
20. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U.: ' Staged configuration using feature models ', Softw. Process Improv. Pract., 2005, 10, (2), p. 143-169 1077-4866
21. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U.: ' Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization ', Softw. Process Improv. Pract., 2005, 10, (1), p. 7-29 1077-4866
22. Batory, D.S.: ' Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas ', Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Software Product Lines (SPLC'05), 2005, p. 7-20
23. Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., and Trinidad, P.: ' Automated reasoning on feature models ', Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (CAiSE'05) LNCS, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 2005, 3520, p. 491-503
24. Sun, J., Zhang, H., Li, Y.F., and Wang, H.: ' Formal semantics and verification for feature modeling ', Proc. 10th IEEE Int. Conf. Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS '05), 2005, p. 303-312
25. Wang, H., Fang, L.Y., Sun, J., Zhang, H., and Pan, J.Z.: ' A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification ', Proc. Int. Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE'05), 2005
26. Asikainen, T., Mannisto, T., and Soininen, T.: ' A unified conceptual foundation for feature modelling ', Proc. 10th Int. Software Product Line Conf., 2006, p. 31-40
27. Harel, D., and Rumpe, B.: ' Meaningful modeling: what's the semantics of 'semantics'? ', IEEE Comput., 2004, 37, (10), p. 64-72
28. ' Modeling languages: syntax, semantics and all that stuff, part I: the basic stuff ', Technical Report MCS00-16, 2000, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science
29. Krogstie, J.: ' Using a semiotic framework to evaluate UML for the development of models of high quality ', Unified modeling language: system analysis, design and develoment issues, (IDEA Group Publishing, 2001), p. 89-106
30. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., and Jørgensen, H.: ' Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework ', Eur. J. Inf. Syst, 2006, 15, (1), p. 91-102 0960-085X
31. Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Trigaux, J.-C., Matulevičius, R., Classen, A., and Bontemps, Y.: ' Towards the comparative evaluation of feature diagram languages ', Software and Services Variability Management Workshop Concepts, Models and Tools (SVM07), 2007
32. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., and Sølvberg, A.: ' Understanding quality in conceptual modeling ', IEEE Softw., 1994, 11, (2), p. 42-49 0740-7459
33. Moody, D.L.: Ling, T.W., Ram, S., Lee, M.-L., ' Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models ', Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER '98), Singapore, November, 1998, Springer, 1507, p. 211-225, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
34. Moody, D.L., and Shanks, G.G.: ' Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework ', Inf. Syst, 2003, 28, (6), p. 619-650
35. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., and Von Uthmann, C.: ' Guidelines of business process modeling ', Business Process Management, 2000, p. 30-49
36. ' Comparing feature diagram examples found in the research literature ', Technical Report, 2007, University of Duisburg-Essen
37. OMG: 'UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification', available at: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04, Last Checked: 12/08
38. Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Trinidad, P., and Segura, S.: ' A survey on the automated analyses of feature models ', Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD'06), 2006
39. Classen, A., Heymans, P., and Schobbens, P.-Y.: ' What's in a feature: A requirements engineering perspective ', Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE'08), Held as Part of the Joint European Conf. Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS'08), Budapest, Hungary, March-April, 2008, 4961, p. 16-30
40. Tarski, A.: ' Logics, semantics and metamathematics ', (Clarendon Press, 1956)
41. Adamek, J., Herrlich, H., and Strecker, G.: ' Abstract and concrete categories ', (Wiley, 1990)
42. Felleisen, M.: Jones, N.D., ' On the expressive power of programming languages ', Proc. 3rd European Symp. Programming (ESOP '90), 1990, Springer, 432, p. 134-151, LNCS
43. Kleene, S.C.: ' Introduction to metamathematics, vol. 1 of bibliotheca mathematica ', North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1952)
44. Janssens, D., and Rozenberg, G.: ' On the structure of node label controlled graph languages ', Inf. Sci., 1980, 20, p. 191-244
45. Papadimitriou, C.H.: ' Computational complexity ', (Addison-Wesley, 1994)
46. Djebbi, O., and Salinesi, C.: ' Criteria for comparing requirements variability modeling notations for product lines ', Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06), 2006, p. 20-35
47. Metzger, A., Heymans, P., Pohl, K., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Saval, G.: ' Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: a separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis ', Proc. 15th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE'07), October, 2007
48. Delannay, G., Mens, K., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Zeippen, J.-M.: ' PloneGov as an open source product line ', Proc. Workshop on Open Source Software and Product Lines (OSSPL'07), 2007
49. Moody, D.L.: ' Dealing with 'Map Shock': a systematic approach for managing complexity in requirements modelling ', Proc. 12th Working Conf. Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ '06), Luxembourg, 2006