Stepwise Context Boundary Exploration Using Guide Words

  • Naoyasu Ubayashi
  • Yasutaka Kamei
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 107)

Abstract

Most requirements elicitation methods do not explicitly provide a systematic way for deciding the boundary of the usage context that should be taken into account because it is essentially difficult to decide which context element should be included as the system requirements. If a developer explores the context boundary in an ad-hoc manner, the developer will be faced with the frame problem because there are unlimited context elements in the real world where the target system exists. There are many application domains that should take into account the frame problem: security, safety, network threats, and user interactions. To deal with this problem, this paper proposes a new type of requirements analysis method for exploring the context boundary using guide words, a set of hint words for finding a context element affecting the system behavior. The target of our method is embedded systems that can be abstracted as a sensor-and-actuator machine exchanging the physical value between a system and its context. In our method, only the value-context elements, a kind of value objects, are extracted as the associated context elements. By applying the guide words, we can explore only a sequence of context elements affecting the data value and avoid falling into the frame problem at the requirements analysis phase.

Keywords

Context analysis Frame problem Embedded systems 
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.
    Atkinson, C., et al.: Component-Based Product Line Engineering with the UML. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman, J.W., Jones, C.B.: Examples of how to Determine the Specifications of Control Systems. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Rigorous Engineering of Fault-Tolerant Systems (REFT 2005), pp. 65–73 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzgerald, J., Larsen, G.P., Mukherjee, P., Plat, N., Verhoef, M.: Validated Designs for Object-oriented Systems. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenspan, S., Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A.: Capturing More World Knowledge in the Requirements Specification. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1982), pp. 225–234 (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartmann, H., Trew, T.: Using Feature Diagrams with Context Variability to Model Multiple Product Lines for Software Supply Chains. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), pp. 12–21 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes, I., Jackson, M., Jones, C.: Determining the Specification of a Control System from That of Its Environment. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heitmeyer, C.L., Bull, A., Gasarch, C., Labaw, B.G.: SCR*: A Toolset for Specifying and Analyzing Requirements. In: Proceedings of Computer Assurance (COMPASS), pp. 109–122 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heitmeyer, C., Bharadwaj, R.: Applying the SCR Requirements Method to the Light Control Case Study. Journal of Universal Computer Science 6(7), 650–678 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frame: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang, K.C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Shin, E., Huh, M.: FORM: A Feature-oriented Reuse Method with Domain-specific Reference Architecture. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang, K.C., Lee, J., Donohoe, P.: Feature-Oriented Product Line Engineering. IEEE Software 9(4), 58–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, K., Kang, K.C.: Usage Context as Key Driver for Feature Selection. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leveson, N.G.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional Documentation for Computer Systems Engineering, McMaster University, Technical Report CRL 237 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reiser, M.-O., Weber, M.: Using Product Sets to Define Complex Product Decisions. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 21–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tun, T.T., Boucher, Q., Classen, A., Hubaux, A., Heymans, P.: Relating Requirements and Features Configurations: A Systematic Approach. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2009), pp. 201–210 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ubayashi, N., Otsubo, G., Noda, K., Yoshida, J.: An Extensible Aspect-Oriented Modeling Environment. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ubayashi, N., Nakajima, S., Hirayama, M.: Context-Dependent Product Line Practice for Constructing Reliable Embedded Systems. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoyasu Ubayashi
    • 1
  • Yasutaka Kamei
    • 1
  1. 1.Kyushu UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations