Handling Regulatory Goal Model Families as Software Product Lines

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9097)

Abstract

Goal models can capture the essence of legal and regulation statements and many of their relationships, enabling compliance analysis. However, current goal modeling approaches do not scale well when handling large regulations with many variable parts that depend on different aspects of regulated organizations. In this paper, we propose a tool-supported approach that integrates the Goal-oriented Requirement Language and feature modeling to handle regulatory goal model families. We show how they can be organized as a Software Product Line (SPL), ensuring the consistency of the SPL as a whole, and providing an adapted derivation process associated to a feature model configuration. The proposed approach is also evaluated on large generated SPLs with results suggesting its capability to address scalability concerns.

Keywords

Goal modeling Goal-oriented requirement language Legal compliance Variability Software product line 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A systematic review of goal-oriented requirements management frameworks for business process compliance. In: Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW) 2011, pp. 25–34. IEEE CS (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Pourshahid, A.: A systematic review of compliance measurement based on goals and indicators. In: Salinesi, C., Pastor, O. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2011. LNBIP, vol. 83, pp. 228–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Alhaj, M., Mussbacher, G., Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Behnam, S.A., Richards, G.: Towards outcome-based regulatory compliance in aviation security. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 267–272. IEEE CS (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rashidi-Tabrizi, R., Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D.: Transforming regulations into performance models in the context of reasoning for outcome-based compliance. In: Sixth International RELAW Workshop, pp. 34–43. IEEE CS (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Pourshahid, A., Braun, E., Yu, E., Mussbacher, G., Tawhid, R., Cartwright, N.: An approach to specify and analyze goal model families. In: Haugen, Ø., Reed, R., Gotzhein, R. (eds.) SAM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7744, pp. 34–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User Requirements Notation: The first ten years, the next ten years. Journal of Software 6(5), 747–768 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITU-T: Recommendation, Z.151 (11/08) - User Requirements Notation (URN)-language definition, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer-Verlag (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D.: Goal and scenario modeling, analysis, and transformation with jucmnav. In: ICSE-Companion 2009, pp. 431–432. IEEE CS (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling domain variability in requirements engineering with contexts. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 115–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asadi, M., Bagheri, E., Gašević, D., Hatala, M., Mohabbati, B.: Goal-driven software product line engineering. In: Proceedings of SAC 2011, pp. 691–698. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y.: Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Computer Networks 51(2), 456–479 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Cortés, A.R.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Feature diagrams and logics: there and back again. In: Proc. of SPLC 2007, pp. 23–34. IEEE CS (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S., Kuhlemann, M.: Granularity in software product lines. In: ICSE 2008, pp. 311–320. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J.N., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling step-wise refinement. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(6), 355–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendonca, M., Wąsowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy. In: SPLC 2009, pp. 231–240. Carnegie Mellon University, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Acher, M., Collet, P., Lahire, P., France, R.B.: Familiar: A domain-specific language for large scale management of feature models. SCP 78(6), 657–681 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendonca, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.: SPLOT: software product lines online tools. In: OOPSLA 2009 companion, pp. 761–762. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metzger, A., Pohl, K., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Saval, G.: Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: a separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis. In: RE 2007, pp. 243–253 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Capturing contextual variability in i* models. In: 5th International i* Workshop, vol. 766, pp. 96–101. CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, Y., do Prado Leite, J.C.S., Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Configuring features with stakeholder goals. In: SAC 2008, pp. 645–649. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva, C.T., Borba, C., Castro, J.: A goal oriented approach to identify and configure feature models for software product lines. In: WER 2011 Worskop (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mussbacher, G., Araújo, J., Moreira, A., Amyot, D.: AoURN-based modeling and analysis of software product lines. Software Quality Journal 20(3–4), 645–687 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, Y., Su, Y., Yin, X., Mussbacher, G.: Combined propagation-based reasoning with goal and feature models. In: MoDRE 2014 workshop, pp. 27–36. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Than Tun, T., Boucher, Q., Classen, A., Hubaux, A., Heymans, P.: Relating requirements and feature configurations: a systematic approach. In: SPLC 2013, pp. 201–210 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Palmieri
    • 1
  • Philippe Collet
    • 1
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Nice – Sophia Antipolis CNRSSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.School of EECSUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations