Wahyudianto, Eko K. Budiardjo, Elviawaty M. Zamzami
1Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia; 2Departement of Computer Science, Universitas Sumatra Utara, Medan, Indonesia..
DOI: 10.4236/jcc.2014.22018   PDF    HTML     4,926 Downloads   7,755 Views   Citations

Abstract

Feature Model (FM) became an important role in Software Product Line Engineering (SPLE) field. Many approaches have been introduced since the original FM came up with Feature Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) introduced by Kang in 1990. The main purpose of FM is used for commonality and variability analysis in domain engineering, to optimize the reusable aspect of software features or components. Cardinality-based Feature Model (CBFM) is one extension of original FM, which integrates several notations of other extensions. In CBFM, feature model defined as hierarchy of feature, with each of feature has a cardinality. The other notation to express variability within SPLE is Orthogonal Variability Model (OVM). At the other hand, OMG as standard organization makes an effort to build standard generic language to express the commonality and variability in SPL field, by initiate Common Variability Language (CVL). This paper reports the comparison and mapping of FODA, CBFM and OVM to CVL where need to be explored first to define meta model mapping of these several approaches. Furthermore, the comparison and mapping of those approaches are discussed in term of R3ST (read as “REST”) software feature model as the case study.

Keywords

Comparison and Mapping; FODA; Cardinality-based Feature Model; Orthogonal Variability Language; Common Variability Language; Feature Model; R3ST Software

Share and Cite:

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	K. C. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Nowak and S. Peterson, “Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study,” Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering, 1990.
[2]	K. C. Kang, “FODA: Twenty Years of Perspective on Feature Modeling,” Proceeding of VaMoS’10, Vol. 37 of ICB-Research Report, Universit?t Duisburg-Essen, 2010, p. 9.
[3]	K. Czarnecki and P. Kim, “Cardinality-based Feature Modeling and Constraints: A Progress Report,” Proceeding of International Workshop on Software Factories, 2005.
[4]	K. Pohl, G. Bockle and F. Linden, “Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques,” Springer, 2005.
[5]	?. Haugen, “Common Variability Language (CVL),” OMG Revised Submission, 2012. http://www.omgwiki.org/variability/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&media=cvl-revised-submission.pdf
[6]	F. Fleurey, ?. Haugen, B. M?ller-Pedersen, G. K. Olsen, A. Svendsen and X. Zhang, “A Generic Language and Tool for Variability Modeling,” Technical Report SINTEF A13505, SINTEF, Oslo, 2009.
[7]	K. Czarnecki, P. Grünbacher, R. Rabiser, K. Schmid and A. Wasowski, “Cool Features and Tough Decisions: A Comparison of Variability Modeling Approaches,” Proceeding of VaMoS’12, ACM, 2012.
[8]	S. Sepúlveda, C. Cares and C. Cachero, “Towards a Unified Feature Metamodel: A Systematic Comparison of Feature Languages,” Proceeding of 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), IEEE, 2012.
[9]	E. M. Zamzami, E. K. Budiardjo and H. Suhartanto, “Requirements Recovery Using Ontology Model for Capturing End-to-End Interaction of Proven Application Software,” IJSEIA International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, SERSC, Vol. 7, No. 6, 2013, pp. 425-434.