Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 811–845 | Cite as

Clafer: unifying class and feature modeling

  • Kacper Bąk
  • Zinovy Diskin
  • Michał Antkiewicz
  • Krzysztof Czarnecki
  • Andrzej Wąsowski
Regular Paper

Abstract

We present Clafer (class, feature, reference), a class modeling language with first-class support for feature modeling. We designed Clafer as a concise notation for meta-models, feature models, mixtures of meta- and feature models (such as components with options), and models that couple feature models and meta-models via constraints (such as mapping feature configurations to component configurations or model templates). Clafer allows arranging models into multiple specialization and extension layers via constraints and inheritance. We identify several key mechanisms allowing a meta-modeling language to express feature models concisely. Clafer unifies basic modeling constructs, such as class, association, and property, into a single construct, called clafer. We provide the language with a formal semantics built in a structurally explicit way. The resulting semantics explains the meaning of hierarchical models whereby properties can be arbitrarily nested in the presence of inheritance and feature modeling constructs. The semantics also enables building consistent automated reasoning support for the language: To date, we implemented three reasoners for Clafer based on Alloy, Z3 SMT, and Choco3 CSP solvers. We show that Clafer meets its design objectives using examples and by comparing to other languages.

Keywords

Language design Feature modeling OOM Semantics Unification 

References

  1. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: a challenging model transformation. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst. (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antkiewicz, M., Bąk, K., Zayan, D., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A., Diskin, Z.: Example-driven modeling using clafer. In: First International Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering By Example (2013). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1104
  3. 3.
    Antkiewicz, M., Bąk, K., Murashkin, A., Liang, J., Olaechea, R., Czarnecki, K.: Clafer tools for product line engineering. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference Co-located Workshops (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K., Stephan, M.: Engineering of framework-specific modeling languages. Softw. Eng. IEEE Trans. 35(6), 521–549 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T.: Nivel: a metamodelling language with a formal semantics. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 31–40 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: A unified conceptual foundation for feature modelling. In: Software Product Line Conference, 10th International (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: Kumbang: A domain ontology for modelling variability in software product families. Adv. Eng. Inform. 21(1), 23–40 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Astels, D.: Refactoring with UML. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bąk, K., Zayan, D., Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M., Diskin, Z., Wąsowski, A., Rayside, D.: Example-driven modeling: model = abstractions + examples. In: New Ideas and Emerging Results (NIER) Track of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barr, M., Wells, C.: Category Theory for Computing Science, vol. 10. Prentice Hall, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berger, T., Rublack, R., Nair, D., Atlee, J.M., Becker, M., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger, T., She, S., Lotufo, R., Wąsowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: Variability modeling in the real: a perspective from the operating systems domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bąk, K., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Feature and meta-models in Clafer: mixed, specialized, and coupled. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010, LNCS 6563, pp. 102–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bąk, K., Diskin, Z., Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Partial instances via subclassing. Softw. Lang. Eng. (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Classen, A., Boucher, Q., Heymans, P.: A text-based approach to feature modelling: Syntax and semantics of TVL. Sci. Comp. Program. 76(12), 1130–1143 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clauß, M., Jena, I.: Modeling variability with UML. In: Young Researchers Workshop at GCSE (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Consortium, A., et al.: EAST-ADL domain model specification, Nov. 28, 2013. Version 2.1.12Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Gluck, R., Lowrt, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005, LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Czarnecki, K., Bednasch, T., Unger, P., Eisenecker, U.: Generative programming for embedded software: an industrial experience report. In: Batory, D., Consel, C., Taha, W. (eds.) GPCE 2002, LNCS 2487, pp. 156–172. Springer. Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czarnecki, K., Grüenbacher, P., Rabiser, R., Schmid, K., Wąsowski, A.: Cool features and tough decisions: a comparison of variability modeling approaches. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 10(1), 331–348 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Czarnecki, K., Hwan, C., Kim, P., Kalleberg, K.: Feature models are views on ontologies. Software Product Line Conference, 10th International (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Czarnecki, K., Pietroszek, K.: Verifying feature-based model templates against well-formedness ocl constraints. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dahchour, M., Pirotte, A., Zimányi, E.: Generic relationships in information modeling. J. Data Semant. IV 3730, 1–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 337–340 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diskin, Z.: Visualization vs. specification in diagrammatic notations: A case study with the UML. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Hari Narayanan, N. (eds.) Diagrams 2002, LNAI 2317, pp. 112–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diskin, Z., Cadish, B.: Variable sets and functions framework for conceptual modeling: integrating ER and OO via sketches with dynamic markers. In: Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modeling (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Diskin, Z., Easterbrook, S., Dingel, J.: Engineering Associations: From Models to Code and Back through Semantics. In: Objects, Components, Models and Patterns (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Diskin, Z., Kadish, B.: Variable set semantics for keyed generalized sketches: formal semantics for object identity and abstract syntax for conceptual modeling. Data Knowl Eng 47, 1–59 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., Johnson, M.: Universal arrow foundations for visual modeling. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000, LNAI 1889, pp. 345–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G.E., Jannach, D.: UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 10(04), 449–469 (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gaeta, J.A.P.: Modeling and implementing variability in aerospace systems product lines. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Group, O.M.: Systems Modeling Language (SysML) (2012). http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.3/
  36. 36.
    Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Wende, C.: FeatureMapper: mapping features to models. In: Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hubaux, A., Boucher, Q., Hartmann, H., Michel, R., Heymans, P.: Evaluating a textual feature modelling language: four industrial case studies. Softw. Lang. Eng. (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hubaux, A., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: A user survey of configuration challenges in Linux and eCos. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    IBM, Thales, Fokus, F., TCS: Proposal for Common Variability Language (CVL) (2012, revised submission). http://www.omgwiki.org/variability/doku.php
  40. 40.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Janota, M., Botterweck, G.: Formal approach to integrating feature and architecture models. Fundam. Approach. Softw. Eng. 31–45 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: a DSL for metamodel specification. In: Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, pp. 171–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jussien, N., Rochart, G., Lorca, X., et al.: Choco: an open source java constraint programming library. In: CPAIOR’08 Workshop on Open-Source Software for Integer and Contraint Programming (OSSICP’08) (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Nowak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, CMU (1990)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kang, K.C.: FODA: Twenty years of perspective on feature modeling. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lambek, J., Scott, P.J.: Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic, vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liang, J.: Correcting Clafer Models with Automated Analysis. Technical Report GSDLab-TR 2012-04-30, GSD Lab, University of Waterloo (2012)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liang, J.: Solving Clafer models with Choco (GSDLab-TR 2012-12-30) (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Michel, R., Classen, A., Hubaux, A., Boucher, Q.: A formal semantics for feature cardinalities in feature diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Murashkin, A.: Automotive electronic/electric architecture modeling, design exploration and optimization using Clafer. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Murashkin, A., Antkiewicz, M., Rayside, D., Czarnecki, K.: Visualization and exploration of optimal variants in product line engineering. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Olaechea, R., Stewart, S., Czarnecki, K., Rayside, D.: Modeling and multi-objective optimization of quality attributes in variability-rich software. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Nonfunctional System Properties in Domain Specific Modeling Languages (2012)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification (2011)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    OMG: OMG Object Constraint Language (OCL) 2.4 (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Partnership, A.D.: Automotive open system architecture (autosar), release 4.1 (2013). http://www.autosar.org/specifications/release-41/
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Reiser, M.O., Kolagari, R.T., Weber, M.: Unified feature modeling as a basis for managing complex system families. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rossini, A., Rutle, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A formalisation of the copy-modify-merge approach to version control in MDE. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 79(7), 636–658 (2010)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A formal approach to the specification and transformation of constraints in MDE. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 81(4), 422–457 (2012)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schmid, K., John, I.: A customizable approach to full lifecycle variability management. Sci. Comput. Program. 53, 259–284 (2004)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation: Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, version 02.00.03. Technical Report SPC-92019-CMC (1993)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stephan, M., Antkiewicz, M.: Ecore.fmp: A tool for editing and instantiating class models as feature models. Technical Report 2008-08, University of Waterloo (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sunyé, G., Pollet, D., Traon, Y.L., Jézéquel, J.M.: Refactoring UML models. In: UML—The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, pp. 134–148 (2001)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wand, Y., Storey, V., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 24(4), 494–528 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kacper Bąk
    • 1
  • Zinovy Diskin
    • 1
  • Michał Antkiewicz
    • 1
  • Krzysztof Czarnecki
    • 1
  • Andrzej Wąsowski
    • 2
  1. 1.GSD LabUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations