FM 2008: FM 2008: Formal Methods pp 390-405 | Cite as

Towards Consistent Specifications of Product Families

  • Alexander Harhurin
  • Judith Hartmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5014)

Abstract

Addressing the challenges faced today during the development of multi-functional system families, we suggest a service-oriented approach to formally specifying the functionality and, in particular, the functional variability already in the requirement engineering phase. In this paper, we precisely define the underlying concepts, such as the notion of individual services, the combination of services, inter-service dependencies, and variability. Thereby, we especially focus on establishing the consistency of the overall specification. To that end, we formally define conflicts between requirements and describe how they can be detected and resolved based on the introduced formal concepts.

Keywords

Functional Requirement Product Family Dependency Function Adaptive Cruise Control Target Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruler, A., Harhurin, A., Hartmann, J.: Modeling the functionality of multi-functional software systems. In: Proceedings of ECBS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruler, A., Harhurin, A., Hartmann, J.: Development and configuration of service-based product lines. In: Proceedings of SPLC 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harhurin, A., Hartmann, J.: A Formal Approach to Specifying the Functionality of Software System Families. Technical report, Technische Universität München (2007), http://www.in.tum.de/forschung/pub/reports/2007/TUM-I0720.pdf.gz
  5. 5.
    Broy, M.: Service-oriented systems engineering: Modeling services and layered architectures. In: FORTE, pp. 48–61 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spichkova, M.: Specification and Seamless Verification of Embedded Real-Time Systems: FOCUS on Isabelle. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batory, D., O’Malley, S.: The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 1 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mannion, M.: Using first-order logic for product line model validation. In: SPLC, pp. 176–187 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trigaux, J.-C., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Classen, A.: Comparative semantics of feature diagrams: Ffd vs. vdfd. CERE 0, 36–47 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E., Darimont, R.: Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 908–926 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schätz, B.: Combining product lines and model-based development. In: Proceedings of Formal Aspects of Component Systems (FACS 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: A template approach based on superimposed variants. In: GPCE, pp. 422–437 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calder, M., Kolberg, M., Magill, E.H., Reiff-Marganiec, S.: Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast. Comput. Networks 41, 115–141 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, M., Zave, P.: Distributed feature composition: A virtual architecture for telecommunications services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 831–847 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braithwaite, K.H., Atlee, J.M.: Towards automated detection of feature interactions. In: FIW, pp. 36–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stepien, B., Logrippo, L.: Representing and verifying intentions in telephony features using abstract data types. In: FIW, pp. 141–155 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, C., Prehofer, C., Rumpe, B.: Feature Specification and Refinement with State Transition Diagrams. In: Fourth IEEE Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Networks and Distributed Systems (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Harhurin
    • 1
  • Judith Hartmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTU MünchenGarching bei MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations