Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Configuring use case models in product families

  • Special Section Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In many domains such as automotive and avionics, the size and complexity of software systems is quickly increasing. At the same time, many stakeholders tend to be involved in the development of such systems, which typically must also be configured for multiple customers with varying needs. Product Line Engineering (PLE) is therefore an inevitable practice for such systems. Furthermore, because in many areas requirements must be explicit and traceability to them is required by standards, use cases and domain models are common practice for requirements elicitation and analysis. In this paper, based on the above observations, we aim at supporting PLE in the context of use case-centric development. Therefore, we propose, apply, and assess a use case-driven configuration approach which interactively receives configuration decisions from the analysts to generate product-specific (PS) use case and domain models. Our approach provides the following: (1) a use case-centric product line modeling method (PUM), (2) automated, interactive configuration support based on PUM, and (3) an automatic generation of PS use case and domain models from Product Line (PL) models and configuration decisions. The approach is supported by a tool relying on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and integrated with an industrial requirements management tool, i.e., IBM DOORS. We successfully applied and evaluated our approach to an industrial case study in the automotive domain, thus showing evidence that the approach is practical and beneficial to capture variability at the appropriate level of granularity and to configure PS use case and domain models in industrial settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://people.svv.lu/hajri/sosym/SupplementaryMaterial.pdf.

References

  1. Alférez, M., Bonifácio, R., Teixeira, L., Accioly, P., Kulesza, U., Moreira, A., Araújo, J., Borba, P.: Evaluating scenario-based SPL requirements approaches: the case for modularity, stability and expressiveness. Requir. Eng. J. 19, 355–376 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alferez, M., Kulesza, U., Moreira, A., Araujo, J., Amaral, V.: Tracing between features and use cases: a model-driven approach. In: VAMOS’08, pp. 81–88 (2008)

  3. Alférez, M., Santos, J., Moreira, A., Garcia, A., Kulesza, U., Araújo, J., Amaral, V.: Multi-view composition language for software product line requirements. In: SLE’09, pp. 103–122 (2009)

  4. Alves, V., Niu, N., Alves, C., Valença, G.: Requirements engineering for software product lines: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 806–820 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Armour, F., Miller, G.: Advanced Use Case Modeling: Software Systems. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA (2001)

  6. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: Change impact analysis for natural language requirements: an NLP approach. In: RE’15, pp. 6–15 (2015)

  7. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: NARCIA: an automated tool for change impact analysis in natural language requirements. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015, pp. 962–965 (2015)

  8. Batory, D.: Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: SPLC’05, pp. 7–20 (2005)

  9. Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: Automated reasoning on feature models. In: CAiSE’05, pp. 491–503 (2005)

  11. Biddle, R., Noble, J., Tempero, E.: Supporting reusable use cases. In: ICSR’02, pp. 210–226 (2002)

  12. Blanes, D., Gonzalez-Huerta, J., Insfran, E.: A multimodel approach for specifying the requirements variability on software product lines. In: ISD’14, pp. 329–336 (2014)

  13. Bonifácio, R., Borba, P.: Modeling scenario variability as crosscutting mechanisms. In: AOSD’09, pp. 125–136 (2009)

  14. Bonifácio, R., Borba, P., Ferraz, C., Accioly, P.: Empirical assessment of two approaches for specifying software product line use case scenarios. Softw. Syst. Model. 1–27 (2015)

  15. Bonifácio, R., Borba, P., Soares, S.: On the benefits of scenario variability as croscutting. In: EA-AOSD’08, pp. 1–6 (2008)

  16. Braganca, A., Machado, R.J.: Automating mappings between use case diagrams and feature models for software product lines. In: SPLC’07, pp. 3–12 (2007)

  17. Buhne, S., Halmans, G., Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K.: Scenario-based application requirements engineering. In: Käkölä, T., Duenas, JC. (eds.) Software Product Lines. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  18. Buhne, S., Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Modeling dependencies between variation points in use case diagrams. In: REFSQ’03, pp. 59–69 (2003)

  19. Choi, W.S., Kang, S., Choi, H., Baik, J.: Automated generation of product use case scenarios in product line development. In: CIT’08, pp. 760–765 (2008)

  20. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA (2001)

  21. Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA (2001)

  22. Cunningham, H., et al.: Developing language processing components with gate version 8 (a user guide). http://gate.ac.uk/sale/tao/tao.pdf

  23. Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: A template approach based on superimposed variants. In: GPCE’05, pp. 422–437 (2005)

  24. Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M., Kim, C.H.P., Lau, S., Pietroszek, K.: fmp and fmp2rsm: eclipse plug-ins for modeling features using model templates. In: OOPSLA’05, pp. 200–201 (2005)

  25. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dhungana, D., Grünbacher, P., Rabiser, R.: The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study. Autom. Softw. Eng. 18, 77–114 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. DOPLER (Decision Oriented Product Line Engineering for Effective Reuse). http://www.ase.jku.at/dopler/

  28. Duran, A., Benavides, D., Segura, S., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: FLAME: a formal framework for the automated analysis of software product lines validated by automated specification testing. Softw. Syst. Model. 1–34. doi:10.1007/s10270-015-0503-z (2016)

  29. Eclipse EMF. https://eclipse.org/modeling/emf/

  30. Eriksson, M., Borstler, J., Asa, A.: Marrying features and use cases for product line requirements modeling of embedded systems. In: SERPS’04, pp. 73–82 (2004)

  31. Eriksson, M., Borstler, J., Borg, K.: The PLUSS approach—domain modeling with features, use cases and use case realizations. In: SPLC’05, pp. 33–44 (2005)

  32. Eriksson, M., Borstler, J., Borg, K.: Managing requirements specifications for product lines—an approach and industry case study. J. Syst. Softw. 82, 435–447 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., John, I., Lami, G., Dorr, J.: Elicitation of use cases for product lines. In: PFE’03, pp. 152–167 (2004)

  34. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Nesti, E.: A methodology for the derivation and verification of use cases for product lines. In: SPLC’04, pp. 255–265 (2004)

  35. Faulk, S.R.: Product-line requirements specification (PRS): an approach and case study. In: RE’01, pp. 48–55 (2001)

  36. Forbus, K.D., Kleer, J.D.: Building Problem Solvers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1993)

  37. Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K.: A metamodeling approach for reasoning about requirements. In: ECMDA-FA’08, pp. 310–325 (2008)

  38. Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Veldhuis, J.W.: Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing. Softw. Syst. Model. 10, 31–54 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., Millo, J.V.: A metamodeling approach for reasoning on multiple requirements models. In: EDOC’13, pp. 159–166 (2013)

  40. Gomaa, H.: Object oriented analysis and modeling families of systems with UML. In: ICSR-6, pp. 89–99 (2000)

  41. Hajri, I., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Stephany, T.: Applying product line use case modeling in an industrial automotive embedded system: lessons learned and a refined approach. In: MODELS’15, pp. 338–347 (2015)

  42. Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Communicating the variability of a software-product family to customers. Softw. Syst. Model. 2, 15–36 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. IEE (International Electronics & Engineering) S.A. http://www.iee.lu/

  44. John, I., Muthig, D.: Product line modeling with generic use cases. In: EMPRESS’04 (2004)

  45. Kulak, D., Guiney, E.: Use Cases: Requirements in Context. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA (2003)

  46. Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA (2002)

  47. Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K.: Towards automated consistency checks of product line requirements specifications. In: ASE’07, pp. 373–376 (2007)

  48. Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K.: Dynamic consistency checking of domain requirements in product line engineering. In: RE’08, pp. 193–202 (2008)

  49. Mendonca, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.: S.P.L.O.T.-software product lines online tools. In: OOPSLA’09, pp. 761–762 (2009)

  50. Moon, M., Yeom, K.: An approach to develop requirement as a core asset in product line. In: ICSR’04, pp. 23–34 (2004)

  51. Moon, M., Yeom, K., Chae, H.S.: An approach to developing domain requirements as a core asset based on commonality and variability analysis in a product line. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(7), 551–569 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mussbacher, G., Araújo, J., Moreira, A., Amyot, D.: AoURN-based modeling and analysis of software product lines. Softw. Qual. J. 20, 645–687 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Myllärniemi, V., Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: Kumbang configurator—a configuration tool for software product families. In: IJCAI-05, pp. 51–57 (2005)

  54. Nie, K., Yue, T., Ali, S., Zhang, L., Fan, Z.: Constraints: The core of supporting automated product configuration of cyber-physical systems. In: MODELS’13, pp. 370–387 (2013)

  55. Nöhrer, A., Biere, A., Egyed, A.: Managing SAT inconsistencies with HUMUS. In: VaMoS’12, pp. 83–91 (2012)

  56. Nöhrer, A., Egyed, A.: Conflict resolution strategies during product configuration. In: VaMoS’10, pp. 107–114 (2010)

  57. Nöhrer, A., Egyed, A.: C2O configurator: a tool for guided decision-making. Autom. Softw. Eng. 20, 265–296 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Oppenheim, A.N.: Questionnaire Design. Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Continuum, London (2005)

  59. pure::variants for IBM Rational DOORS. http://www.pure-systems.com/DOORS.174.0.html

  60. pure::variants. http://www.pure-systems.com/pure_variants.49.0.html

  61. Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P., Dhungana, D.: Requirements for product derivation support: results from a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 324–346 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rosa, M.L., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 8, 251–274 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S.: Industrial validation of COVAMOF. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 584–600 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S., Nijhuis, J., Bosch, J.: COVAMOF: a framework for modeling variability in software product families. In: SPLC’04, pp. 197–213 (2004)

  65. Stoiber, R.: A new approach to product line engineering in model-based requirements engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of Zurich (2012)

  66. Stoiber, R., Fricker, S., Jehle, M., Glinz, M.: Feature unweaving: refactoring software requirements specifications into software product lines. In: RE’10, pp. 403–404 (2010)

  67. Stoiber, R., Glinz, M.: Supporting stepwise, incremental product derivation in product line requirements engineering. In: VaMoS’10, pp. 77–84 (2010)

  68. Sun, J., Zhang, H., Li, Y.F., Wang, H.: Formal semantics and verification for feature modeling. In: ICECCS’05, pp. 303–312 (2005)

  69. Trinidad, P., Benavides, D., Duran, A., Ruiz-Cortes, A., Toro, M.: Automated error analysis for the agilization of feature modeling. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 883–896 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: Abductive reasoning and automated analysis of feature models: how are they connected? In: VaMoS’09, pp. 145–153 (2009)

  71. Varela, P., Araújo, J., Brito, I., Moreira, A.: Aspect-oriented analysis for software product lines requirements engineering. In: SAC’11, pp. 667–674 (2011)

  72. Wang, B., Zhang, W., Zhao, H., Jin, Z., Mei, H.: A use case based approach to feature models’ construction. In: RE’09, pp. 121–130 (2009)

  73. Wang, C., Pastore, F., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Iqbal, M.Z.Z.: Automatic generation of system test cases from use case specifications. In: ISSTA’15, pp. 385–396 (2015)

  74. Wang, C., Pastore, F., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Iqbal, M.Z.Z.: UMTG: a toolset to automatically generate system test cases from use case specifications. ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015, pp. 942–945 (2015)

  75. Wang, H., Li, Y.F., Sun, J., Zhang, H., Pan, J.: A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification. In: SWESE’05 (2005)

  76. Weston, N., Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A.: A framework for constructing semantically composable feature models from natural language requirements. In: SPLC’09, pp. 211–220 (2009)

  77. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA (2012)

  78. Yue, T., Ali, S., Briand, L.C.: Automated transition from use cases to uml state machines to support state-based testing. In: ECMFA’11, pp. 115–131 (2011)

  79. Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: approach and experiments. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(1), 5:1–5:38 (2013)

  80. Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: aToucan: an automated framework to derive UML analysis models from use case models. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24(3), 1–52 (2015)

  81. Zhang, G., Yue, T., Wu, J., Ali, S.: Zen-RUCM: A tool for supporting a comprehensive and extensible use case modeling framework. In: Demos@MoDELS 2013, pp. 41–45 (2013)

  82. Ziadi, T., Jezequel, J.M.: Product line engineering with the UML: deriving products. Käkölä , T., Duenas, JC. (eds.) Software Product Lines. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  83. Zschaler, S., Sánchez, P., Santos, J., Alférez, M., Rashid, A., Fuentes, L., Moreira, A., Araújo, J., Kulesza, U.: VML*—a family of languages for variability management in software product lines. In: SLE’09, pp. 82–102 (2009)

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by IEE and FNR under Grants FNR/P10/03 and FNR10045046.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SnT Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Ines Hajri, Arda Goknil & Lionel C. Briand

  2. International Electronics & Engineering (IEE), Contern, Luxembourg

    Thierry Stephany

Authors
  1. Ines Hajri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arda Goknil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lionel C. Briand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thierry Stephany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ines Hajri.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Jordi Cabot and Alexander Egyed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajri, I., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C. et al. Configuring use case models in product families. Softw Syst Model 17, 939–971 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0539-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0539-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation