Abstract
Feature modeling is a common way to present and manage variability of software and systems. As a prerequisite for effective variability management is comprehensible representation, the main aim of this paper is to investigate difficulties in understanding feature models. In particular, we focus on the comprehensibility of feature models as expressed in Common Variability Language (CVL), which was recommended for adoption as a standard by the Architectural Board of the Object Management Group. Using an experimental approach with participants familiar and unfamiliar with feature modeling, we analyzed comprehensibility in terms of comprehension score, time spent to complete tasks, and perceived difficulty of different feature modeling constructs. The results showed that familiarity with feature modeling did not influence the comprehension of mandatory, optional, and alternative features, although unfamiliar modelers perceived these elements more difficult than familiar modelers. OR relations were perceived as difficult regardless of the familiarity level, while constraints were significantly better understood by familiar modelers. The time spent to complete tasks was higher for familiar modelers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2005)
Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)
Chen, L., Ali Babar, M.: A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology 53, 344–362 (2011)
Haugen, Ø.: Common Variability Language (CVL) – OMG Revised Submission. OMG document ad/2012-08-05 (2012)
Istoan, P., Klein, J., Perouin, G., Jezequel, J.-M.: A Metamodel-based Classification of Variability Modeling Approaches. In: VARiability for You Workshop, pp. 23–32 (2011)
Czarnecki, K., Grünbacher, 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, pp. 173–182. ACM, Leipzig (2012)
Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 136-145. IEEE Computer Society (2006)
Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., Classen, A.: Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. IET Software 2, 281–302 (2008)
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.D.: Process Models Representing Knowledge for Action: A Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)
Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of “Semantics”? Computer 37, 64–72 (2004)
Djebbi, O., Salinesi, C.: Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines. In: Workshops on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, pp. 20–35 (2006)
Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J.: Comparison of System Family Modeling Approaches. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 102–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Matinlassi, M.: Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2004, pp. 127–136 (2004)
Jayaratna, N.: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framework. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1994)
Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual Modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, pp. 49–68. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1992)
Reinhartz-Berger, I., Tsoury, A.: Experimenting with the Comprehension of Feature-Oriented and UML-Based Core Assets. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 468–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Reinhartz-Berger, I., Tsoury, A.: Specification and Utilization of Core Assets: Feature-Oriented vs. UML-Based Methods. In: De Troyer, O., Bauzer Medeiros, C., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Simitsis, A., Van Mingroot, H. (eds.) ER Workshops 2011. LNCS, vol. 6999, pp. 302–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA. ACM (2005)
Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A.: Utilizing domain models for application design and validation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1275–1289 (2009)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering – An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)
Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)
Kumar, S., Karoli, V.: Handbook of Business Research Methods. Thakur Publishers (2011)
Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do the Pictures mean? Guidelines for Experimental Evaluation of Representation Fidelity in Diagrammatical Conceptual Modeling Techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55 (2005)
Recker, J.: Continued Use of Process Modeling Grammars: The Impact of Individual Difference Factors. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 76–92 (2010)
Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 288–290. ACM, Kaiserslautern (2008)
Siau, K., Loo, P.-P.: Identifying Difficulties in Learning UML. Information Systems Management 23, 43–51 (2006)
Preacher, K., Rucker, D., MacCallum, R., Nicewander, W.: Use of the Extreme Groups Approach: A Critical Reexamination and New Recommendations. Psychol Methods 10, 178–192 (2005)
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)
Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers’ Understanding of Process Models. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 22 (2011)
Naess, A.: A Study of ‘Or’. Synthese 13, 49–60 (1961)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52 (2010)
Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 756–779 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Reinhartz-Berger, I., Figl, K., Haugen, Ø. (2014). Comprehending Feature Models Expressed in CVL. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds) Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8767. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_31
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11652-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11653-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)