Comprehending Feature Models Expressed in CVL

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Iris Reinhartz-Berger (18)
  Kathrin Figl (19)
  脴ystein Haugen (20)
  
• 关键词：Variability analysis ; Software Product Line Engineering ; Model Comprehension
• 刊名：Lecture Notes in Computer Science
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：8767
• 期：1
• 页码：501-517
• 全文大小：343 KB
• 参考文献：1. Pohl, K., B枚ckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2005)
  2. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)
  3. Chen, L., Ali Babar, M.: A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology聽53, 344鈥?62 (2011) CrossRef
  4. Haugen, 脴.: Common Variability Language (CVL) 鈥?OMG Revised Submission. OMG document ad/2012-08-05 (2012)
  5. Istoan, P., Klein, J., Perouin, G., Jezequel, J.-M.: A Metamodel-based Classification of Variability Modeling Approaches. In: VARiability for You Workshop, pp. 23鈥?2 (2011)
  6. Czarnecki, K., Gr眉nbacher, P., Rabiser, R., Schmid, K., W膮sowski, A.: Cool features and tough decisions: A comparison of variability modeling approaches. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems, pp. 173鈥?82. ACM, Leipzig (2012) CrossRef
  7. Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 136-145. IEEE Computer Society (2006)
  8. Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., Classen, A.: Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. IET Software聽2, 281鈥?02 (2008) CrossRef
  9. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., J酶rgensen, H.D.: Process Models Representing Knowledge for Action: A Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems聽15, 91鈥?02 (2006) CrossRef
  10. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful Modeling: What鈥檚 the Semantics of 鈥淪emantics鈥? Computer聽37, 64鈥?2 (2004) CrossRef
  11. Djebbi, O., Salinesi, C.: Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines. In: Workshops on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, pp. 20鈥?5 (2006)
  12. Haugen, 脴., M酶ller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J.: Comparison of System Family Modeling Approaches. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol.聽3714, pp. 102鈥?12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRef
  13. Matinlassi, M.: Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2004, pp. 127鈥?36 (2004)
  14. Jayaratna, N.: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framework. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1994)
  15. Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual Modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, pp. 49鈥?8. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1992)
  16. Reinhartz-Berger, I., Tsoury, A.: Experimenting with the Comprehension of Feature-Oriented and UML-Based Core Assets. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol.聽81, pp. 468鈥?82. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRef
  17. Reinhartz-Berger, I., Tsoury, A.: Specification and Utilization of Core Assets: Feature-Oriented vs. UML-Based Methods. In: De Troyer, O., Bauzer Medeiros, C., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Simitsis, A., Van Mingroot, H. (eds.) ER Workshops 2011. LNCS, vol.聽6999, pp. 302鈥?11. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRef
  18. Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA. ACM (2005)
  19. Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A.: Utilizing domain models for application design and validation. Inf. Softw. Technol.聽51, 1275鈥?289 (2009) CrossRef
  20. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., H枚st, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wessl茅n, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering 鈥?An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)
  21. Petre, M.: Why looking isn鈥檛 always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM聽38, 33鈥?4 (1995) CrossRef
  22. Kumar, S., Karoli, V.: Handbook of Business Research Methods. Thakur Publishers (2011)
  23. Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do the Pictures mean? Guidelines for Experimental Evaluation of Representation Fidelity in Diagrammatical Conceptual Modeling Techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55 (2005)
  24. Recker, J.: Continued Use of Process Modeling Grammars: The Impact of Individual Difference Factors. European Journal of Information Systems聽19, 76鈥?2 (2010) CrossRef
  25. Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 288鈥?90. ACM, Kaiserslautern (2008) CrossRef
  26. Siau, K., Loo, P.-P.: Identifying Difficulties in Learning UML. Information Systems Management聽23, 43鈥?1 (2006) CrossRef
  27. Preacher, K., Rucker, D., MacCallum, R., Nicewander, W.: Use of the Extreme Groups Approach: A Critical Reexamination and New Recommendations. Psychol Methods聽10, 178鈥?92 (2005) CrossRef
  28. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)
  29. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers鈥?Understanding of Process Models. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 22 (2011)
  30. Naess, A.: A Study of 鈥極r鈥? Synthese聽13, 49鈥?0 (1961) CrossRef
  31. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology聽52 (2010)
  32. Moody, D.L.: The 鈥淧hysics鈥?of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering聽35, 756鈥?79 (2009) CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Iris Reinhartz-Berger (18)
  Kathrin Figl (19)
  脴ystein Haugen (20)
  
  18. Department of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Israel
  19. Institute for Information Systems & New Media, Vienna, Austria
  20. SINTEF and Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
  
• ISSN：1611-3349

文摘

Feature modeling is a common way to present and manage variability of software and systems. As a prerequisite for effective variability management is comprehensible representation, the main aim of this paper is to investigate difficulties in understanding feature models. In particular, we focus on the comprehensibility of feature models as expressed in Common Variability Language (CVL), which was recommended for adoption as a standard by the Architectural Board of the Object Management Group. Using an experimental approach with participants familiar and unfamiliar with feature modeling, we analyzed comprehensibility in terms of comprehension score, time spent to complete tasks, and perceived difficulty of different feature modeling constructs. The results showed that familiarity with feature modeling did not influence the comprehension of mandatory, optional, and alternative features, although unfamiliar modelers perceived these elements more difficult than familiar modelers. OR relations were perceived as difficult regardless of the familiarity level, while constraints were significantly better understood by familiar modelers. The time spent to complete tasks was higher for familiar modelers.