On the Use of LTSs to Analyze Software Product Line Products Composed of Features

  • Jyrki Nummenmaa
  • Timo Nummenmaa
  • Zheying Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 214)


In product line engineering, it is common to define the products as sets of features, where each feature has a related set of requirements. Typically, there is a common set of features/requirements, and some variable features/requirements for building different products. In an earlier proposal to use labeled transition systems (LTSs) to model and check the products, the products were composed using the feature-oriented approach and LTS models were analyzed using a related LTS analyzer tool. However, no further details or analysis about the models and possible conflicts were given. We investigate in more detail the types of conflicts that may arise and discuss the integration strategies for building an integrated LTS for the product composed of features.


Software product line Functional requirement Feature model Labeled transition system 


  1. 1.
    Aaltonen T, Katara M, Pitkänen R (2001) Disco toolset—the new generation. J Univ Comput Sci 7(1):3–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batory D (2005) Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Product Lines, SPLC’05, 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benavides D, Segura S, Ruiz-Cortés A (2010) Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review. Inf Syst 35(6):615–636Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheung SC, Giannakopoulou D, Kramer J (1997) Verification of liveness properties using compositional reachability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th European software engineering conference held jointly with the 5th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, ESEC ’97/FSE-5. Springer, New York, pp 227–243Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diller A (1990) Z: an introduction to formal methods. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Djebbi O, Salinesi C, Diaz D (2007) Deriving product line requirements: the red-pl guidance approach. In: Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, APSEC ’07. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 494–501Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hemakumar A (2008) Finding contradictions in feature models. In: First international workshop on analyses of software product lines (ASPL’08), pp 183–190, 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hess J, Novak W, Kang K, Cohen S, Peterson A (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study (CMU/SEI-90-TR-021). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang KC, Kim S, Lee J, Kim K, Shin E, Huh M (1998) Form: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Ann Softw Eng 5:143–168Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight JC, DeJong CL, Gibble MS, Nakano LG (1997) Why are formal methods not used more widely?. In: Fourth NASA formal methods workshop, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magee J, Kramer J (2006) Concurrency: state models & Java Programs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mannion M (2002) Using first-order logic for product line model validation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on software product lines, SPLC 2. Springer, London, UK, pp 176–187Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nummenmaa J, Zhang Z, Nummenmaa T, Berki E, Guo J, Wang Y (2010) On the generation of disCo specifications from functional requirements, D-2010-13. University of Tampere, TampereGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peña J, Hinchey MG, Ruiz-Cortés A, Trinidad P (2007) Building the core architecture of a nasa multiagent system product line. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Agent-oriented software engineering VII, AOSE’06. Springer, Berlin, pp 208–224Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl K, Böckle G, van der Linden FJ (2005) Software product line engineering: foundations, principles and techniques. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sommerville I, Kotonya G (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trinidad P, Benavides D, Durán A, Ruiz-Cortés A, Toro M (2008) Automated error analysis for the agilization of feature modeling. J Syst Softw 81(6):883–896Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trinidad P, Ruiz Cortés A (2009) Abductive reasoning and automated analysis of feature models: how are they connected?. In: VaMoS’09, pp 145–153, 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    von der Massen T, Lichter HH (2004) Deficiencies in feature models. In: Mannisto T, Bosch J (ed) Workshop on software variability management for product derivation—towards tool support. LNCS Vol. 3154, Springer, 2004Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang H, Li YF, Sun J, Zhang H, Pan J (2005) A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification. In: Workshop on semantic web enabled software engineering, SWESE’05, 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang Y, Peng X, Zhao W (2008) Feature-oriented software product line design and implementation based on adaptive component model. J Front Comput Sci Technol 2(3):274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyrki Nummenmaa
    • 1
  • Timo Nummenmaa
    • 1
  • Zheying Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations