Advertisement

An incremental method for the design of feature-oriented systems

  • Karim Berkani
  • Pascale Le Gall
  • Francis Klay
Conference paper

Abstract

Telecommunication systems involve many optional features which cannot be combined according to an obvious definition because they can interact together in an unpredictable way. In order to find the best way to combine features, a major difficulty is to foresee or to discover when a feature can disrupt an another one. Once such an interaction has been analysed, it still remains to define the best combination between the involved features. As this decision is purely subjective, we model the design of feature-oriented systems as an iterative process controlled by an expert judgement: all along the process, the expert increases his knowledge about the system under design and thus, may revise the feature integration design w.r.t. his expertise ... until he decides to accept the current feature integration as conform to his ideal view of the system. We propose to jointly adjust the description of a system built by integrating features and the expected properties on the global system all along the iterative process. Thus, step by step, the expert is brought to classify properties as desirable or undesirable.

Keywords

Composition Operator Feature Integration Telecommunication System Feature Interaction Design Step 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Arnould, P. Le Gall, and B. Marre. Dynamic testing from bounded data type specifications. In Proc. of EDCC-2 Second European DependdableComputing Conference, Taormina, Italy, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Bernot, H. Jouve, F Klay, F Ouabdesselam, and J.-L. Richier. Aide à l’intégration de services par la génération de tests. In AFADL’OO, Grenoble, France, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.G. Bouma and H. Velthuijsen, editors. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (FIW’95). IOS Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.G. Bouma and H. Velthuijsen, editors. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (FIW’98). IOS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jan Bredereke. Families of Formal Requirements in Telephone Switching. In [6], pages 257–273, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Calder and E. Magill, editors. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (FIW’OO). IOS Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Combes and S. Pickin. Formalization of a user view of network and services for feature interaction detection. In Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems, pages 120–135. IOS Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Diaconescu, J. Goguen, and P. Stefaneas. Logical support for modularization. In G. Huet and G. Plotkin, editors, Logical Environments, Proceedings of a Workshop on Logical Frameworks, pages 83–130, may 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. du Bousquet, F. Ouabdesselam, J.-L. Richier, and N. Zuanon. Feature interaction detection using synchronous approach and testing. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Gammelgaard and J. E. Kristensen. Interaction detection, a logical approach. In L.G. Bouma and H. Velthuijsen, editors, Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems, pages 178–196. IOS Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Gaston, M. Aiguier, and P. Le Gall. Algebraic treatment of feature-oriented systems. Technical Report 44, LaMI, Université d’Evry, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.P. Gibson. Towards a feature interaction algebra. In [4], pages 217–231, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Gilmore and J. Hillston. Implementing the PEPA feature construct. In Workshop on Language Constructs for Describing Features, pages 23–38. Stephen Gilmore and Mark Ryan (editors),Glasgow, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. A. Goguen and R. M. Burstall. Institutions; abstract model theory for specifications and programming. association for Computing Machinery, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Goldberg, E. Magill, D. Marples, and S. Reiff. Second feature interaction contest. In [6], pages 293–310, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Klay, M. Rusinowitch, and S. Stratulat. Analysing Feature Interactions with Automated Deduction Systems. In 7th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems Modeling and Analysis, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Nakamura, Y. Kakuda, and T. Kikuno. Feature Interaction Detection Using Permutation Symmetry. In Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems V, pages 187–201. IOS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Nancy, B. Blumenthal, J.C. Gregoire, and T. Otha. Feature interaction detection contest. In [4], pages 327–359, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Plath and M. Ryan. Plug-and-play features. In [4], pages 150–164, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Wirsing. Structured Specifications: Syntax, Semantics and Proof Calculus. In Brauer W. Bauer F. and Schwichtenberg H., editors, Logic and Algebra of Specification, pages 411–442. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoneda-Ohta. A formal approach for definition and detection of feature interaction. In [4], pages 202–216, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Zave. Architectural solutions to feature-interaction problems in telecommunications. In [4], pages 10–22, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karim Berkani
    • 1
  • Pascale Le Gall
    • 2
  • Francis Klay
    • 1
  1. 1.France Télécom R&D, site de LannionTechnopole AnticipaLannion CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire des Méthodes InformatiquesUniversité d’EvryEvry CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations