Identifying Traceability between Feature Model and Software Architecture in Software Product Line using Formal Concept Analysis

Chai, Duck Jin; Hwang, Baik; Kim, Eun Hee; Jin, Long; Ryu, Keun Ho

doi:10.1109/iccsa.2007.59

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zhu et al [15] define a traceability relation from requirements to features and also from features to architectures, with consistency analysis. Reference [14] lpresents a method to identify the traceability between feature model and architecture model. The Czarnecki's work [3,10,11] on giving semantics to features in feature models by mapping them to other models has been found useful at the requirements level.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Traceability Analyses between Features and Assets in Software Product Lines

Narwane

Galindo

Krishna

et al. 2016

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In a Software Product Line (SPL), the central notion of implementability provides the requisite connection between specifications and their implementations, leading to the definition of products. While it appears to be a simple extension of the traceability relation between components and features, it involves several subtle issues that were overlooked in the existing literature. In this paper, we have introduced a precise and formal definition of implementability over a fairly expressive traceability relation. The consequent definition of products in the given SPL naturally entails a set of useful analysis problems that are either refinements of known problems or are completely novel. We also propose a new approach to solve these analysis problems by encoding them as Quantified Boolean Formulae (QBF) and solving them through Quantified Satisfiability (QSAT) solvers. QBF can represent more complex analysis operations, which cannot be represented by using propositional formulae. The methodology scales much better than the SAT-based solutions hinted in the literature and were demonstrated through a tool called SPLAnE (SPL Analysis Engine) on a large set of SPL models.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main idea behind all of these works is that the variability analysis can be reduced to constraints and variables modeling the feature level variability [2,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. While there are several recent works on traceability, most of them have confined themselves to an informal treatment [16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traceability Analyses between Features and Assets in Software Product Lines

Narwane

Galindo

Krishna

et al. 2016

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[52] defined a seí of mapping analysis rules similar ío íhe linkage rules we propose. These rules are íexíually described while íhe linkage rules we propose are formally síaíed by íhe Feaíure-PLA Traceabiliíy Model.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Saíyananda eí al. [52] preseníed a framework for formally ideníify-ing íraceabiliíy beíween feaíure and archiíecíure models using Formal Concept Analysis, funcíional decomposiíion, and a seí of mapping analysis rules. Finally, Berg eí al.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model for tracing variability from features to product-line architectures: a case study in smart grids

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In current software systems with highly volatile requirements, traceability plays a key role to maintain the consistency between requirements and code. Traceability between artifacts involved in the development of Software Product Lines (SPL) is still more critical because it is necessary to guarantee that the selection of variants that realize the different SPL producís meet the requirements. Current SPL traceability mechanisms trace from variability in features to variations in the configuration of product-line architecture (PLA) in terms of adding and removing components. However, it is not always possible to materialize the variable features of a SPL through adding or removing components, since sometimes they are materialized inside components, i.e. in part of their functionality: a class, a service and/or an interface. Additionally, variations that happen inside components may crosscut several components of architecture. These kinds of variations are still challenging and their traceability is not currently well-supported. Therefore, it is not possible to guarantee that those SPL producís with íhese kinds of variaíions meeí íhe requiremenís. This paper presenís a soluíion for íracing variabiliíy from feaíures ío PLA by íaking íhese kinds of variaíions inío accouní. This soluíion is based on models and íraceabiliíy beíween models in order ío auíomaíe SPL configuration by selecíing íhe varianís and realizing íhe producí applicaíion. The FPLA modeling framework supporís íhis soluíion which has been deployed in a software facíory. Validaíion has consisíed in puííing íhe soluíion inío pracíice ío develop a producí line of power meíering managemení applicaíions for Smarí Grids.

show abstract

“…In addition to precise traceability, this allows to formally check properties such as consistency among the integrated models [20,21]. Lisboa et al [22] present a tool set for domain analysis and generate a product model by specifying a scope, generating a domain model for a scope and selecting configurable features from a domain feature model.…”

Section: Figure 7 -Cost Drivers and High-risk Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%