![](bg6.png)
Users.Higher_Education AND
User_Interface.Template_Based requires
System.Publish
System.Layout impacts
User_Interface.Quiz_Interface_Layout
User_Interface.Dutch AND
User.Cooperate_Bussiness requires
System.Custom
Listing 1: QPL sample Intra-perspective dependencies.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
In this paper we have presented a new multi-
perspective feature-oriented technique for modelling
variability, called Feature Assembly Modelling
(FAM). FAM tried to address some of the
limitations of mainstream feature modelling
techniques such as lack of abstraction mechanisms,
weak support (if any) for complex and large
software, and the complexity of the technique for
non-experience modellers. The modelling technique
is part of the Feature Assembly approach, which also
addressed some of the challenges that were not
perceived by FODA such as the need for reusing
feature specifications across different applications.
FAM uses a multi-perspective approach for
modelling the variability. Perspectives act as
abstraction mechanism enabling better separation of
concerns when modelling software. The different
perspectives are interconnected via feature
dependencies; this provides a more complete picture
of the system modelled. In addition, we have
reduced the number of modelling primitives used
separated variability specification from the feature
definition. This will allow reusing features for
different software systems (not shown in this paper).
The next step in the research is to apply FAM to
an industrial case to validate its usability and
expressivity. We are also working on a method to
collect and store features in a so-called Feature Pool
and provide mechanisms to select them for reuse in
other software (the Feature Assembly approach).
REFERENCES
Abo Zaid, L., Kleinermann, F., De Troyer, O. (2009).
Applying semantic web technology to feature
modeling. SAC 2009: 1252-1256.
Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., and Soininen, T. (2007).
Kumbang: A Domain Ontology for Modelling
Variability in Software Product Families. Advanced
Engineering Informatics, 21(1), pp. 23-40.
Batory, D. (2005). Feature models, grammars, and
propositional formulas. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.)
SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714.
Bosch, J. (2005). Software Product Families in Nokia. In:
9th International Conference SPLC 2005.
Bosch, J. (2000). Design and Use of Software
Architectures: Adapting and Evolving a Product-Line
Approach. Addison-Wesley. ISBN: 0-201-67494-7.
Clauss ,M. (2001). Generic Modeling using UML
extensions for variability. In Workshop on Domain-
specific Visual Languages, OOPSLA 2001, pp. 11-18.
Czarnecki, K. and Kim, C. H. P.(2005). Cardinality-Based
Feature Modeling and Constraints. In OOPSLA’05
International Workshop on Software Factories.
Djebbi, O., Salinesi, C. (2006). Criteria for Comparing
Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for
Product Lines. In: Comparative Evaluation in
Requirements Engineering, CERE '06. pp. 20-35.
Eriksson, M., Börstler, J., and Borg, K. (2005). The
PLUSS Approach - Domain Modeling with Features,
Use Cases and Use Case Realizations. In Obbink and
Pohl (eds). SPLC 2005, LNCS 3714, pp. 33–44.
Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L.,
Goedicke, M. (1992). Viewpoints: A Framework for
Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System
Development. Intl. J. of Software Engineering and
Knowledge Engineering 2(1), 31–57.
Gomaa, H., (2005). Designing Software Product Lines
with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based
Software Architectures, Addison-Wesley
Graham, T.C.N. (1996). Viewpoints Supporting the
Development of Interactive Software. In: Proceedings
of Viewpoints 96: International Workshop on Multiple
Perspectives in Software Development, pp. 263-267.
Griss, M., Favaro, J., and d’Alessandro, M. (1998).
Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Fifth
International Conference on Software Reuse, pp. 76–
85.
Jaring, M., Krikhaar, R. L., and Bosch, J. (2004).
Representing variability in a family of MRI scanners.
Software—Practice & Experience. Volume 34 . Issue
1. pp: 69 – 100.
Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., and Peterson, A.
(1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA)
feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-
021. Software Engineering Institute.
Kang, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., and Huh, M.
(1998). FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method
with Domain-Specific Reference Architectures. In: J.
Annals of Software Engineering. vol. 5, pp. 143-168.
Kang, K. C., Lee, J. and Donohoe., P. (2002). Feature-
Oriented Product Line Engineering. IEEE Software.
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 58-65.
Maccari, A., and Heie, A. (2005): Managing infinite
variability in mobile terminal software. Softw., Pract.
Exper. 35(6): pp 513-537.
MacGregor, J. (2002) Bosch Experience Report,Technical
report IST-2001-34438.
ICSOFT 2010 - 5th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies
34