On the Ontological Expressiveness of the High-Level Constraint Language for Product Line Specification

  • Angela VillotaEmail author
  • Raúl Mazo
  • Camille Salinesi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11150)


The High-Level Constraint Language (HLCL) consolidates the constraints scattered in several product line notations in an abstract and technologically independent language. Previous research has demonstrated that HLCL is suitable to represent most product line constraints from a practical point of view. However, the question about to what extent the HLCL is able to represent product line variability is still open. In this study, we refer to the ontological expressiveness theory to answer this question and to evaluate how well HLCL can represent the state of affairs for which it is proposed. Therefore, this evaluation considers HLCL’s ontological expressiveness regarding its completeness and clarity. Our results show that (1) HLCL closely represents the concepts in the ontological framework. However, some variability concepts should be integrated for obtaining a 100% level of completeness. (2) HLCL’s high level of abstraction impacts its clarity. The discussion of the research presented in this paper opens the perspectives to build a constraint-based language for product line engineering.


Product line engineering Constraint language Ontological analysis 


  1. 1.
    Asadi, M., Gasevic, D., Wand, Y., Hatala, M.: Deriving variability patterns in software product lines by ontological considerations. In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 397–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bürdek, J., Lity, S., Lochau, M., Berens, M., Goltz, U., Schürr, A.: Staged configuration of dynamic software product lines with complex binding time constraints. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems - VaMoS 2014, pp. 1–8. ACM Press, New York (2013).
  5. 5.
    Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.: The effects of decomposition quality and multiple forms of information on novices’ understanding of a domain from a conceptual model. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9(12), 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton-Jones, A., Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(6), 495–532 (2009). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Softw. Process. Improv. Pract. 10(1), 7–29 (2005). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djebbi, O., Salinesi, C.: Towards an automatic PL requirements configuration through constraints reasoning. In: Second International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pp. 17–23 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontology-based evaluation and design of visual conceptual modeling languages. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering, pp. 317–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ODE software process ontology. In: Memorias de la XI Conferencia Iberoamericana de Software Engineering (CIbSE 2008), Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil, 13–17 February 2008, pp. 127–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, R., Franch, X., Guizzardi, G.: Applying a foundational ontology to analyze means-end links in the \(i^{\star }\) framework. In: 2012 Sixth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–11. IEEE, May 2012.
  12. 12.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) Feasibility study. Technical Report Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitchenham, B., et al.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(8), 721–734 (2002). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinez, J., Ziadi, T., Mazo, R., Bissyande, T.F., Klein, J., Traon, Y.L.: Feature relations graphs: a visualisation paradigm for feature constraints in software product lines. In: Second IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, September 2014, pp. 50–59. IEEE (2014).
  15. 15.
    Mazo, R., Grünbacher, P., Heider, W., Rabiser, R., Salinesi, C., Diaz, D.: Using constraint programming to verify DOPLER variability models. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems - VaMoS 2011, pp. 97–103. ACM Press, New York (2011).
  16. 16.
    Mazo, R., Muñoz-Fernández, J.C., Rincón, L., Salinesi, C., Tamura, G.: VariaMos: an extensible tool for engineering (dynamic) product lines. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line - SPLC 2015. pp. 374–379. ACM Press, New York (2015).
  17. 17.
    Mazo, R., Salinesi, C., Diaz, D., Djebbi, O., Lora-Michiels, A.: Constraints: the heart of domain and application engineering in the product lines engineering strategy. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 3(2), 33–68 (2012). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muñoz-Fernández, J.C., Tamura, G., Raicu, I., Mazo, R., Salinesi, C.: REFAS: a PLE approach for simulation of self-adaptive systems requirements. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line - SPLC 2015, pp. 121–125. ACM Press, New York (2015).
  19. 19.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1977), September 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (1977).
  20. 20.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Wand, Y.: External variability of software: classification and ontological foundations. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salinesi, C., Mazo, R.: Defects in product line models and how to identify them. In: Software Product Line - Advanced Topics, chap. 5, p. 50. InTech (2012). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salinesi, C., Mazo, R., Djebbi, O., Diaz, D., Lora-Michiels, A.: Constraints: the core of product line engineering. In: Fifth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–10 (2011).
  24. 24.
    Saraswat, V.A., Rinard, M.: Concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages - POPL 1990, pp. 232–245. ACM Press, New York (1990).
  25. 25.
    Sawyer, P., Mazo, R., Diaz, D., Salinesi, C., Hughes, D.: Using constraint programming to manage configurations in self-adaptive systems. Computer 45(10), 56–63 (2012). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shanks, G., Moody, D., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D., Weber, R.: Representing classes of things and properties in general in conceptual modelling. J. Database Manag. 21(2), 1–25 (2010). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf. Syst. J. 3(4), 217–237 (1993). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris 1 Panthéon SorbonneParisFrance
  2. 2.Universidad IcesiCaliColombia
  3. 3.Universidad EAFIT, GIDITICMedellínColombia

Personalised recommendations