Analyzing goal variability in cyber-physical system networks

Networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems can achieve goals individual systems are incapable of achieving on their own. However, which goals such a network can achieve depends, in part, on the networks current configuration, i.e. its composition of partaking individual systems. As networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems are of a dynamic nature, the composition of such a network can change during runtime, leading to a plethora of often similar, albeit slightly different configurations. Due to the huge number of possible configurations and their various dependencies to the different goals of the network, it is infeasible to handle this amount of information manually. Hence, to provide support for reasoning about dependencies between different configurations and the goals they can achieve, this paper contributes an automated model-based reasoning approach using view generations. Our approach allows for exploring which goals can be fulfilled by which configurations and which goals cannot be fulfilled by these configurations. We evaluated the approach using an industrial case study which shows the applicability of the approach and a controlled experiment which shows the benefits of the approach.

[1]  Dragan Gasevic,et al.  Configuring Software Product Line Feature Models Based on Stakeholders' Soft and Hard Requirements , 2010, SPLC.

[2]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Configuring features with stakeholder goals , 2008, SAC '08.

[3]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Goal-driven software product line engineering , 2011, SAC.

[4]  Marian Daun,et al.  Towards Goal Modeling and Analysis for Networks of Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems , 2019, ER Forum/Posters/Demos.

[5]  Marian Daun,et al.  Collaborating Multiple System Instances of Smart Cyber-physical Systems: A Problem Situation, Solution Idea, and Remaining Research Challenges , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for Smart Cyber-Physical Systems.

[6]  Jian Yu,et al.  Specifying and reasoning about contextual preferences in the goal-oriented requirements modelling , 2018, ACSW.

[7]  Klaus-Dieter Thoben,et al.  Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems , 2018, Comput. Ind..

[8]  Jaejoon Lee,et al.  A holistic approach to feature modeling for product line requirements engineering , 2013, Requirements Engineering.

[9]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments? , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

[10]  Marian Daun,et al.  Common Threats and Mitigation Strategies in Requirements Engineering Experiments with Student Participants , 2016, REFSQ.

[11]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Visual variability analysis for goal models , 2004, Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2004..

[12]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering , 1997, Proceedings of ISRE '97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[13]  Jennie Lioris,et al.  Platoons of connected vehicles can double throughput in urban roads , 2015, 1511.00775.

[14]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Requirements-driven design of autonomic application software , 2016, CASCON.

[15]  Raian Ali,et al.  Reasoning with contextual requirements: Detecting inconsistency and conflicts , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[16]  Gerd Gröner,et al.  Goal-oriented modeling and verification of feature-oriented product lines , 2014, Software & Systems Modeling.

[17]  Marian Daun,et al.  Generic Negative Scenarios for the Specification of Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems , 2019, ER.

[18]  Stephen Fickas,et al.  Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition , 1993, Sci. Comput. Program..

[19]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Goal-based configuration analysis for networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems , 2020, SAC.

[20]  Luis M. Camarinha-Matos,et al.  Towards collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems , 2017, 2017 International Young Engineers Forum (YEF-­ECE).

[21]  Farida Semmak,et al.  Variability in Goal-Oriented Domain Requirements , 2006, ICSR.

[22]  R. W. Jones The International Telecommunication Union , 1997 .

[23]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Configuring common personal software: a requirements-driven approach , 2005, 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05).

[24]  Dietmar Pfahl,et al.  Reporting Experiments in Software Engineering , 2008, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering.

[25]  Bo Yang,et al.  Addressing quality attributes in domain analysis for product lines , 2006, IEE Proc. Softw..

[26]  Manfred Broy,et al.  Challenges in modeling Cyber-Physical Systems , 2013, 2013 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN).

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

[28]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Requirements-driven adaptive security: Protecting variable assets at runtime , 2012, 2012 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[29]  Marian Daun,et al.  View-Centric Context Modeling to Foster the Engineering of Cyber-Physical System Networks , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA).

[30]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study , 2017, Requirements Engineering.

[31]  Jaelson Brelaz de Castro,et al.  Goals and Scenarios for Requirements Engineering of Software Product Lines , 2011, iStar.

[32]  Jaelson Brelaz de Castro,et al.  Goals and Scenarios to Software Product Lines: the GS2SPL Approach , 2013, ER@BR.

[33]  Yijun Yu,et al.  From Goals to High-Variability Software Design , 2008, ISMIS.

[34]  João Araújo,et al.  Adapting the i* Framework for Software Product Lines , 2009, ER Workshops.

[35]  Jacob Stein,et al.  Preference-based feature model configuration with multiple stakeholders , 2014, SPLC.

[36]  Jaelson Brelaz de Castro,et al.  A Goal Oriented Approach to Identify and Configure Feature Models for Software Product Lines , 2011, WER.

[37]  Ebrahim Bagheri,et al.  Toward automated quality‐centric product line configuration using intentional variability , 2017, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

[38]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Automated planning for feature model configuration based on functional and non-functional requirements , 2012, SPLC '12.

[39]  LiGuo Huang,et al.  Rule-based context-aware adaptation: a goal-oriented approach , 2012, Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun..

[40]  Hongyuan Wang,et al.  Rule-based context-aware adaptation using a goal-oriented ontology , 2011, SAGAware '11.

[41]  João Araújo,et al.  AoURN-based modeling and analysis of software product lines , 2011, Software Quality Journal.

[42]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Self-tuning of software systems through dynamic quality tradeoff and value-based feedback control loop , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[43]  Michael Fisher,et al.  Formal verification of autonomous vehicle platooning , 2016, Sci. Comput. Program..

[44]  Marian Daun,et al.  Goal modeling for collaborative groups of cyber-physical systems with GRL: reflections on applicability and limitations based on two studies conducted in industry , 2019, SAC.

[45]  Sooyong Park,et al.  A scenario, goal and feature-oriented domain analysis approach for developing software product lines , 2004, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[46]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization , 2005, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[47]  Sven Apel,et al.  Views on Internal and External Validity in Empirical Software Engineering , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

[48]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Toward automated feature model configuration with optimizing non-functional requirements , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[49]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[50]  Xavier Franch,et al.  iStar 2.0 Language Guide , 2016, ArXiv.

[51]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Towards a Unified Framework for Contextual Variability in Requirements , 2009, 2009 Third International Workshop on Software Product Management.

[52]  Carla Schuenemann,et al.  Comparing Configuration Approaches for Dynamic Software Product Lines , 2017, SBES'17.

[53]  Shinpei Hayashi,et al.  Constructing Feature Models Using Goal-Oriented Analysis , 2009, 2009 Ninth International Conference on Quality Software.

[54]  Ebrahim Bagheri,et al.  From Intentions to Decisions: Understanding Stakeholders' Objectives in Software Product Line Configuration , 2014, SEKE.

[55]  Akihiko Ohsuga,et al.  gocc: a configuration compiler for self-adaptive systems using goal-oriented requirements description , 2011, SEAMS '11.

[56]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications , 2009 .

[57]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[58]  Anna Perini,et al.  Engineering requirements for adaptive systems , 2015, Requirements Engineering.

[59]  Marian Daun,et al.  Model-based documentation of dynamicity constraints for collaborative cyber-physical system architectures: Findings from an industrial case study , 2019, J. Syst. Archit..

[60]  Raian Ali,et al.  A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis , 2010, Requirements Engineering.

[61]  Sooyong Park,et al.  Goal and scenario based domain requirements analysis environment , 2006, J. Syst. Softw..

[62]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour , 2001, RE.

[63]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software product line engineering and variability management: achievements and challenges , 2014, FOSE.

[64]  Yijun Yu,et al.  Requirements-Driven Design and Configuration Management of Business Processes , 2007, BPM.

[65]  Sooyong Park,et al.  A method and tool support for variant requirements analysis: goal and scenario based approach , 2004, 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[66]  T. Lumley,et al.  The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. , 2002, Annual review of public health.

[67]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .