Comparing Structure-Oriented and Behavior-Oriented Variability Modeling for Workflows

  • Anna-Lena Lamprecht
  • Tiziana Margaria
  • Ina Schaefer
  • Bernhard Steffen
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 255)

Abstract

Workflows exist in many different variants in order to adapt the behavior of systems to different circumstances and to arising user’s needs. Variability modeling is a way of keeping track at the model level of the currently supported and used workflow variants. Variability modeling approaches for workflows address two directions: structure-oriented approaches explicitly specify the workflow variants by means of linguistic constructs, while behavior-oriented approaches define the set of all valid compositions of workflow components by means of ontological annotations and temporal logic constraints. In this paper, we describe how both structure-oriented and behavior-oriented variability modeling can be captured in an eXtreme Model-Driven Design paradigm (XMDD). We illustrate this via a concrete case (a variant-rich bioinformatics workflow realized with the jABC platform for XMDD), and we compare the two approaches in order to identify their profiles and synergies.

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Variation Point Software Product Line Common Core 
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.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods and Systems. MIT Press (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang, K., Lee, J., Donohoe, P.: Feature-Oriented Project Line Engineering. IEEE Software 19(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Agile IT: Thinking in User-Centric Models. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 490–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Business Process Modelling in the jABC: The One-Thing-Approach. In: Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Nagel, R., Jörges, S., Kubczak, C.: Model-Driven Development with the jABC. In: Bin, E., Ziv, A., Ur, S. (eds.) HVC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4383, pp. 92–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Synthesis-Based Loose Programming. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, QUATIC (September 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamprecht, A.-L., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Seven Variations of an Alignment Workflow - An Illustration of Agile Process Design and Management in Bio-jETI. In: Măndoiu, I., Wang, S.-L., Zelikovsky, A. (eds.) ISBRA 2008. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 4983, pp. 445–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kwon, Y., Shigemoto, Y., Kuwana, Y., Sugawara, H.: Web API for biology with a workflow navigation system. Nucl. Acids Res. 37(suppl_2), W11–W16 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larkin, M., Blackshields, G., Brown, N., Chenna, R., McGettigan, P., McWilliam, H., Valentin, F., Wallace, I., Wilm, A., Lopez, R., Thompson, J., Gibson, T., Higgins, D.: Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23(21), 2947–2948 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Ommering, R.C.: Software reuse in product populations. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 31(7), 537–550 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakera, M., Margaria, T., Renner, C., Steffen, B.: Tool-supported enhancement of diagnosis in model-driven verification. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 5, 211–228 (2009), doi:10.1007/s11334-009-0091-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naujokat, S.: Automatische Generierung von Prozessen im jABC. Diplomarbeit, TU Dortmund (September 2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Freitag, B.: Module Configuration by Minimal Model Construction. Technical report, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Passau (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müller-Olm, M., Schmidt, D., Steffen, B.: Model-Checking - A Tutorial Introduction. Static Analysis, 848 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna, Z., Wolper, P.: Synthesis of Communicating Processes from Temporal Logic Specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 6(1), 68–93 (1984)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., von der Beeck, M.: Automatic synthesis of linear process models from temporal constraints: An incremental approach. In: ACM/SIGPLAN Int. Workshop on Automated Analysis of Software, AAS 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Braun, V., Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Yoo, H., Rychly, T.: Safe service customization. In: Intelligent Network Workshop, IN 1997, vol. 2, p. 4. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Bio-jETI: a framework for semantics-based service composition. BMC Bioinformatics 10(suppl.10), S8 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Semantics-based composition of EMBOSS services. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2(suppl. 1), S5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Naujokat, S., Steffen, B., Margaria, T.: Constraint-Guided Workflow Composition Based on the EDAM Ontology. In: Burger, A., Marshall, M.S., Romano, P., Paschke, A., Splendiani, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, December 10, vol. 698 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmid, K., Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P.: A comparison of decision modeling approaches in product lines. In: VaMoS, pp. 119–126 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Völter, M., Groher, I.: Product Line Implementation using Aspect-Oriented and Model-Driven Software Development. In: SPLC, pp. 233–242 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ziadi, T., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.M.: Towards a UML Profile for Software Product Lines. In: Workshop on Product Familiy Engineering (PFE), pp. 129–139 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML. Addison Wesley (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Busch, C.: Overview of Generative Software Development. In: Banâtre, J.-P., Fradet, P., Giavitto, J.-L., Michel, O. (eds.) UPP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3566, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling Step-Wise Refinement. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(6), 355–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heidenreich, F., Wende, C.: Bridging the Gap Between Features and Models. In: Aspect-Oriented Product Line Engineering, AOPLE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Noda, N., Kishi, T.: Aspect-Oriented Modeling for Variability Management. In: SPLC (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Apel, S., Janda, F., Trujillo, S., Kästner, C.: Model Superimposition in Software Product Lines. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 4–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Olsen, G., Svendsen, A.: Adding Standardized Variability to Domain Specific Languages. In: SPLC (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clarke, D., Helvensteijn, M., Schaefer, I.: Abstract delta modeling. In: GPCE. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pérez, J., Díaz, J., Soria, C.C., Garbajosa, J.: Plastic Partial Components: A solution to support variability in architectural components. In: WICSA/ECSA, pp. 221–230 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schaefer, I., Lamprecht, A.L., Margaria, T.: Constraint-oriented Variability Modelin. In: Rash, J., Rouff, C. (eds.) 34th Annual IEEE Software Engineering Workshop (SEW-34). IEEE CS Press (to appear, 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna-Lena Lamprecht
    • 1
  • Tiziana Margaria
    • 2
  • Ina Schaefer
    • 3
  • Bernhard Steffen
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Programming SystemsTechnical University DortmundGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Service and Software EngineeringUniversity PotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Software Systems EngineeringTechnische Universität BraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations