A Technique to Represent Product Line Core Assets in MDA/PIM for Automation

  • Hyun Gi Min
  • Soo Dong Kim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3943)


A Product Line (PL) is a set of products (applications) that share common assets in a domain. Product line engineering (PLE) supports the systematic development of a set of similar software systems by common and distinguishing characteristics. Core assets, the common assets, are created and instantiated to make products in PLE. Model Driven Architecture (MDA) emphasizes its feasibility with an automatically developing product. Therefore, we can get the advantages of two paradigms, PLE and MDA, as core assets are represented as PIM in MDA with a predefined automatic mechanism. The PLE framework in the PIM level has to be interpreted by MDA tools. However, we do not have a standard UML profile for representing core assets. The research representing the PLE framework is not enough to automatically make core assets and products. We represent core assets in the PIM level in terms of architecture, components, and decision models. Core assets are specified with our profile at the level of PIM, where they can be automatically transformed and instantiated. The method of representing the framework with PLE and MDA is used to improve productivity, applicability, maintainability and quality of products.


Decision Model Variation Point Object Constraint Language Software Product Line Model Drive Architecture 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    OMG, MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, omg/2003-06-01 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines. Addison Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flater, D.: Impact of Model-Driven Architecture. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (January 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankel, D., Parodi: The MDA Journal, Model Driven Architecture Straigth from the Masters. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muthig, D., Atkinson, C.: Model-Driven Product Line Architectures. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 110–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankel, D.: Model Driven ArchitectureTM: Applying MDATM to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Java Community Process, UML Profile For EJB_Draft (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG, UMLTM Profile and Interchange Models for Enterprise Application Integration(EAI) Specification (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG, UML Profile for CORBA Specification V1.0, OMG (November 2000) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML from Use Cases to Pattern-based Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group, Model Driven Architecture (MDA) (July 2001) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG, MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, omg/2003-06-01 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clements, P., et al.: Documenting Software Architectures Views and Beyond (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matinlassi, M., Niemela, E., Dobrica, L.: Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method: A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture, VTT publication 456, VTT Technical Research Center of Finland, ESPOO2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heineman, G., Councill, W.: Component-Based Software Engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roman, E.: Mastering Enterprise JavaBeansTM and the JavaTM2 Platform, Enterprise Edition. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mellor, S., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model-Driven Architecture. Addison Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, S., Min, H., Rhew, S.: Variability Design and Customization Mechanisms for COTS Components. In: Gervasi, O., Gavrilova, M.L., Kumar, V., Laganá, A., Lee, H.P., Mun, Y., Taniar, D., Tan, C.J.K. (eds.) ICCSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3480, pp. 57–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, S., Chang, S., Chang, C.: A Systematic Method to Instantiate Core Assets in Product Line Engineering. In: Proceedings of Asian-Pacific Software Engineering Conference 2004 (November 2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S., Nijhuis, J., Bosch, J.: COVAMOF: A Framework for Modeling Variability in Software Product Families. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 197–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, S., Her, J., Chang, S.: A Theoretical Foundation of Variability in Component-based Development. Information and Software Technology 47, 663–673 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyun Gi Min
    • 1
  • Soo Dong Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations