Feature Assembly Modelling - A New Technique for Modelling Variable Software

Abstract Feature . A Feature represents a concrete logical or physical unit or characteristic of the system . An Abstract Feature is a feature which is not concrete; rather it is a generalization of more specific features (concrete or abstract ones). Figure 1.a shows the notations used to represent both feature types. How the features are assembled together to model the system is specified via feature relations . We define two types of feature relations: composition relation and generalization/specification relation . The composition relation is used to express the whole-part relation; i.e. a feature is composed of one or more fine-grained features. The composition can be mandatory or optional . Figure 1.b shows the composition relation notation. The generalization/ specification relation is used only in combination with abstract features and allow specifying possible (concrete or abstract) Option Features of an abstract feature. Figure 1.c shows the generalization/ specification notation. In terms of variability, an abstract feature represents a

[1]  Jaejoon Lee,et al.  FORM: A feature-;oriented reuse method with domain-;specific reference architectures , 1998, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[2]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  Towards a UML Profile for Software Product Lines , 2003, PFE.

[3]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Design and use of software architectures - adopting and evolving a product-line approach , 2000 .

[4]  T. C. Nicholas Graham.  Viewpoints supporting the development of interactive software , 1996, ISAW '96.

[5]  Alessandro Maccari,et al.  Managing infinite variability in mobile terminal software , 2005, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[6]  Marco Sinnema,et al.  COVAMOF: A Framework for Modeling Variability in Software Product Families , 2004, SPLC.

[7]  Jürgen Börstler,et al.  The PLUSS Approach - Domain Modeling with Features, Use Cases and Use Case Realizations , 2005, SPLC.

[8]  Camille Salinesi,et al.  Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines , 2006, Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop).

[9]  René L. Krikhaar,et al.  Representing variability in a family of MRI scanners , 2004, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[10]  Don S. Batory,et al.  Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas , 2005, SPLC.

[11]  Tomi Männistö,et al.  Kumbang: A domain ontology for modelling variability in software product families , 2007, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[12]  Martin L. Griss,et al.  Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB , 1998, Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse (Cat. No.98TB100203).

[13]  Jan Bosch.  Software Product Families in Nokia , 2005, SPLC.

[14]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development , 1992, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[15]  Goetz Botterweck,et al.  Applying visualisation techniques in software product lines , 2008, SOFTVIS.

[16]  Patrick Donohoe,et al.  Feature-Oriented Project Line Engineering , 2002, IEEE Softw..

[17]  Matthias Clauss,et al.  Generic Modeling using UML extensions for variability , 2001 .

[18]  Marco Sinnema,et al.  Classifying variability modeling techniques , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  K. Czarnecki,et al.  Cardinality-Based Feature Modeling and Constraints : A Progress Report , 2005 .

[20]  Olga De Troyer,et al.  Applying semantic web technology to feature modeling , 2009, SAC '09.

[21]  Eoin Woods,et al.  Experiences Using Viewpoints for Information Systems Architecture: An Industrial Experience Report , 2004, EWSA.

[22]  Hassan Gomaa.  Designing Software Product Lines with UML 2.0: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures , 2006, ICSR.

[23]  Kyo Chul Kang,et al.  Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study , 1990 .