research-article

Goal-based configuration analysis for networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems

Authors:
Jennifer Brings

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
View Profile

,
Marian Daun

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
View Profile

,
Thorsten Weyer

University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany
View Profile

,
Klaus Pohl

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
View Profile

SAC '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied ComputingMarch 2020Pages 1387–1396https://doi.org/10.1145/3341105.3374011

Published:30 March 2020Publication History

SAC '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

Pages 1387–1396

ABSTRACT

Networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems can achieve goals individual systems are incapable of achieving on their own. However, which goals such a network can achieve depends, in part, on the networks current configuration, i.e. its composition of partaking individual systems. As networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems are of a dynamic nature, the composition of such a network can change during runtime, leading to a plethora of often similar albeit slightly different configurations. Due to the huge number of possible configurations and their various dependencies to the different goals of the network, it is infeasible to handle this amount of information manually. Hence, to provide support for reasoning about dependencies between different configurations and the goals they can achieve, this paper contributes an automated model-based reasoning approach using view generations. Our approach allows for exploring which goals can be fulfilled by which configurations and which goals cannot be fulfilled by these configurations. We evaluated the approach using an industrial case study which shows the applicability and benefits of the approach.

References

R. Ali, F. Dalpiaz, and P. Giorgini. 2010. A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis. Requir. Eng. 15, 4 (July 2010), 439--458. Google ScholarDigital Library
R. Ali, F. Dalpiaz, and P. Giorgini. 2013. Reasoning with contextual requirements: Detecting inconsistency and conflicts. Inf. and Softw. Technol. 55, 1 (Jan. 2013), 35--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
R. Ali, Y. Yu, R. Chitchyan, A. Nhlabatsi, and P. Giorgini. 2009. Towards a Unified Framework for Contextual Variability in Requirements. In 2009 3^rd Int. WS on Softw. Product Manag. 31--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
S. Antônío, J. Araújo, and C. Silva. 2009. Adapting the i* Framework for Software Product Lines. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling - Challenging Perspectives. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 286--295. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Asadi, E. Bagheri, D. Gašević, M. Hatala, and B. Mohabbati. 2011. Goal-driven Software Product Line Engineering. In Proc. of the 2011 ACM Symp. on Applied Comput. ACM, 691--698. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Asadi, G. Gröner, B. Mohabbati, and D. Gašević. 2016. Goal-oriented modeling and verification of feature-oriented product lines. Softw. & Syst. Modeling 15, 1 (Feb. 2016), 257--279. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Asadi, S. Soltani, D. Gasevic, M. Hatala, and E. Bagheri. 2014. Toward automated feature model configuration with optimizing non-functional requirements. Inf. and Softw. Technol. 56, 9 (Sept. 2014), 1144--1165. Google ScholarCross Ref
E. Bagheri, T. Di Noia, A. Ragone, and D. Gasevic. 2010. Configuring Software Product Line Feature Models Based on Stakeholders' Soft and Hard Requirements. In Softw. Product Lines: Going Beyond. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 16--31. Google ScholarCross Ref
K.A. Botangen, J. Yu, S. Yongchareon, L.H. Yang, and Q. Bai. 2018. Specifying and Reasoning About Contextual Preferences in the Goal-oriented Requirements Modelling. In Proc. of the Australasian Comput. Sci. Week Multiconf. ACM, 47:1--47:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
P. Bresciani, A. Perini, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia, and J. Mylopoulos. 2004. Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Syst. 8, 3 (May 2004), 203--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Brings and M. Daun. 2019. Towards Goal Modeling and Analysis for Networks of Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems. In Proc. of the ER Forum and Poster & Demos Session 2019 co-located with 38^th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2019). 70--83. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2469/ERForum6.pdfGoogle Scholar
J. Brings, M. Daun, T. Bandyszak, V. Stricker, T. Weyer, E. Mirzaei, M. Neumann, and J.S. Zernickel. 2019. Model-based documentation of dynamicity constraints for collaborative cyber-physical system architectures: Findings from an industrial case study. J. Syst. Architect 97 (Aug. 2019), 153--167. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Broy. 2013. Challenges in modeling cyber-physical systems. In The 12^th Int. Conf. on Inf. Processing in Sensor Networks (co-located with CPS Week 2013), IPSN. ACM, 5--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. Eisenecker. 2005. Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Softw. Process: Improvement and Practice 10, 1 (2005), 7--29. Google ScholarCross Ref
F. Dalpiaz, X. Franch, and J. Horkoff. 2016. iStar 2.0 Language Guide. arXiv:1605.07767 [cs] (May 2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07767Google Scholar
A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas. 1993. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. of Comput. Programming 20, 1--2 (April 1993), 3--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Daun, J. Brings, T. Bandyszak, P. Bohn, and T. Weyer. 2015. Collaborating Multiple System Instances of Smart Cyber-physical Systems: A Problem Situation, Solution Idea, and Remaining Research Challenges. In 1^st IEEE/ACM Int. WS. on Softw. Eng. for Smart Cyber-Physical Syst. 48--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Daun, V. Stenkova, L. Krajinski, J. Brings, T. Bandyszak, and T. Weyer. 2019. Goal Modeling for Collaborative Groups of Cyber-Physical Systems with GRL. In Proc. of the 32^th ACM/SIGAPP Symp. on Applied Comput. 1600--1609. Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Gonzales-Baixauli, J.C.S. do Prado Leite, and J. Mylopoulos. 2004. Visual variability analysis for goal models. In Proc. 12^th IEEE Int. Requir. Eng. Conf., 2004. 198--207. Google ScholarCross Ref
G. Guedes, C. Silva, and J. Castro. 2011. Goals and scenarios for requirements engineering of software product lines. In Proc. of the 5^th Int. i* WS. 108--113.Google Scholar
G. Guedes, C. Silva, and J. Castro. 2013. Goals and Scenarios to Software Product Lines: the GS2SPL Approach. Proc. of Requir. Eng.@Brazil 2013 (2013).Google Scholar
G. Guedes, C. Silva, and M. Soares. 2017. Comparing Configuration Approaches for Dynamic Software Product Lines. In Proc. of the 31^st Brazilian Symp. on Softw. Eng. ACM, 134--143. Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Horkoff, F. Başak Aydemir, E. Cardoso, T. Li, A. Maté, E. Paja, M. Salnitri, L. Piras, J. Mylopoulos, and P. Giorgini. 2019. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study. Requir. Eng. 24, 2 (June 2019), 133--160. Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Kim, M. Kim, H. Yang, and S. Park. 2004. A method and tool support for variant requirements analysis: goal and scenario based approach. In 11^th Asia-Pacific Softw. Eng. Conf. 168--175. Google ScholarDigital Library
S. Jarzabek, B. Yang, and S. Yoeun. 2006. Addressing quality attributes in domain analysis for product lines. IEE Proc. - Softw. 153, 2 (April 2006), 61--73. Google ScholarCross Ref
M. Kamali, L.A. Dennis, O. McAree, M. Fisher, and S.M. Veres. 2017. Formal verification of autonomous vehicle platooning. Sci. of Comput. Programming 148 (June 2017), 88 -- 106. Google ScholarCross Ref
K.C. Kang, S.G. Cohen, J.A. Hess, W.E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Number CMU/SEI-90-TR-21. Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
A. Khalid, P. Kirisci, Z.H. Khan, Z. Ghrairi, K.-D. Thoben, and J. Pannek. 2018. Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems. Comput. Ind. 97 (May 2018), 132--145. Google ScholarCross Ref
J. Kim, M. Kim, and S. Park. 2006. Goal and scenario based domain requirements analysis environment. J. of Syst. and Softw. 79, 7 (July 2006), 926--938. Google ScholarDigital Library
A. van Lamsweerde. 2001. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In Proc. 5^th IEEE Int. Symp. on Requir. Eng. 249--262. Google ScholarCross Ref
A. Lapouchnian, Y. Yu, S. Liaskos, and J. Mylopoulos. 2006. Requirements-driven Design of Autonomic Application Software. In Proc. of the Annu. Int. Conf. on Comput. Sci. and Softw. Eng. IBM Corp., 23--37. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3049877.3049879Google Scholar
A. Lapouchnian, Y. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos. 2007. Requirements-Driven Design and Configuration Management of Business Processes. In Business Process Manag. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 246--261. Google ScholarCross Ref
J. Lee, K.C. Kang, P. Sawyer, and H. Lee. 2014. A holistic approach to feature modeling for product line requirements engineering. Requir. Eng. 19, 4 (Nov. 2014), 377--395. Google ScholarDigital Library
S. Liaskos, A. Lapouchnian, Y. Wang, Y. Yu, and S. Easterbrook. 2005. Configuring common personal software: a requirements-driven approach. In 13^th IEEE Int. Conf. on Requir. Eng. (RE'05). 9--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Lioris, R. Pedarsani, F.Y. Tascikaraoglu, and P. Varaiya. 2017. Platoons of connected vehicles can double throughput in urban roads. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 77 (April 2017), 292--305. Google ScholarCross Ref
A. Metzger and K. Pohl. 2014. Software Product Line Engineering and Variability Management: Achievements and Challenges. In Proc. of the Future of Softw. Eng. ACM, 70--84. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Morandini, L. Penserini, A. Perini, and A. Marchetto. 2017. Engineering requirements for adaptive systems. Requir. Eng. 22, 1 (March 2017), 77--103. Google ScholarDigital Library
G. Mussbacher, J. Araújo, A. Moreira, and D. Amyot. 2012. AoURN-based modeling and analysis of software product lines. Softw. Quality J. 20, 3 (Sept. 2012), 645--687. Google ScholarDigital Library
H. Nakagawa, A. Ohsuga, and S. Honiden. 2011. Gocc: A Configuration Compiler for Self-adaptive Systems Using Goal-oriented Requirements Description. In Proc. of the 6^th Int. Symp. on Softw. Eng. for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. ACM, 40--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
A.A. Nazarenko and L.M. Camarinha-Matos. 2017. Towards collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems. In 2017 Int. Young Engineers Forum (YEF-ECE). 12--17. Google ScholarCross Ref
M. Noorian, E. Bagheri, and W. Du. 2014. From Intentions to Decisions: Understanding Stakeholders' Objectives in Software Product Line Configuration. (2014), 671--677.Google Scholar
M. Noorian, E. Bagheri, and W. Du. 2017. Toward automated quality-centric product line configuration using intentional variability. J. of Softw.: Evolution and Process 29, 9 (2017), e1870. Google ScholarCross Ref
S. Park, M. Kim, and V. Sugumaran. 2004. A scenario, goal and feature-oriented domain analysis approach for developing software product lines. Industrial Management & Data Syst. 104, 4 (May 2004), 296--308. Google ScholarCross Ref
X. Peng, B. Chen, Y. Yu, and W. Zhao. 2012. Self-tuning of software systems through dynamic quality tradeoff and value-based feedback control loop. J. of Syst. and Soft w. 85, 12 (Dec. 2012), 2707--2719. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Salehie, L. Pasquale, I. Omoronyia, R. Ali, and B. Nuseibeh. 2012. Requirements-driven adaptive security: Protecting variable assets at runtime. In 2012 20^th IEEE Int. Requir. Eng. Conf. (RE). 111--120. Google ScholarDigital Library
F. Semmak and J. Brunet. 2006. Variability in Goal-Oriented Domain Requirements. In Reuse of Off-the-Shelf Components. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 390--394. Google ScholarDigital Library
C. Silva, C. Borba, and J. Castro. 2011. A Goal Oriented Approach to Identify and Configure Feature Models for Software Product Lines. (2011).Google Scholar
S. Soltani, M. Asadi, D. Gašević, M. Hatala, and E. Bagheri. 2012. Automated Planning for Feature Model Configuration Based on Functional and Non-functional Requirements. In Proc. of the 16^th Int. Softw. Product Line Conf. - Volume 1. ACM, 56--65. Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Stein, I. Nunes, and E. Cirilo. 2014. Preference-based Feature Model Configuration with Multiple Stakeholders. In Proc. of the 18^th Int. Softw. Product Line Conf. - Volume 1. ACM, 132--141. Google ScholarDigital Library
V. Stenkova, J. Brings, M. Daun, and T. Weyer. 2019. Generic Negative Scenarios for the Specification of Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems. In Conceptual Modeling. Springer Int. Publishing, 412--419. Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Tenbergen, M. Daun, P. Aluko Obe, and J. Brings. 2018. View-Centric Context Modeling to Foster the Engineering of Cyber-Physical System Networks. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Softw. Architecture, ICSA 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 206--216. Google ScholarCross Ref
International Telecommunication Union. 2018. User Requirements Notation (URN).Google Scholar
K. Uno, S. Hayashi, and M. Saeki. 2009. Constructing Feature Models Using Goal-Oriented Analysis. In 2009 9^th Int. Conf. on Quality Softw. 412--417. Google ScholarDigital Library
A. van Lamsweerde. 2009. Reasoning About Alternative Requirements Options. In Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications: Essays in Honor of John Mylopoulos. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 380--397. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ho. Wang, R. Mehta, L. Chung, S. Supakkul, and L. Huang. 2012. Rule-based context-aware adaptation: a goal-oriented approach. Int. J. of Pervasive Comput. and Communications 8, 3 (Aug. 2012), 279--299. Google ScholarCross Ref
H. Wang, R. Mehta, S. Supakkul, and L. Chung. 2011. Rule-based Context-aware Adaptation Using a Goal-oriented Ontology. In Proc. of the 2011 Int. WS on Situation Activity & Goal Awareness. ACM, 67--76. Google ScholarDigital Library
E.S.K. Yu. 1997. Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In Proc. of the 3^rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requir. Eng., 1997. 226--235. Google ScholarCross Ref
Y. Yu, J.C.S. do Prado Leite, A. Lapouchnian, and J. Mylopoulos. 2008. Configuring Features with Stakeholder Goals. In Proc. of the 2008 ACM Symp. on Applied Comput. ACM, 645--649. Google ScholarDigital Library
Y. Yu, A. Lapouchnian, S. Liaskos, J. Mylopoulos, and J.C.S. do Prado Leite. 2008. From Goals to High-Variability Software Design. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1--16. Google ScholarCross Ref

Index Terms

Goal-based configuration analysis for networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Embedded and cyber-physical systems
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software organization and properties
    1. Software system structures
      1. Software system models
        Model-driven software engineering

Recommendations

Goal modeling for collaborative groups of cyber-physical systems with GRL: reflections on applicability and limitations based on two studies conducted in industry
SAC '19: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing

In the future, cyber-physical systems (CPS) will increasingly need to have the capability to collaborate with other CPS during runtime to fulfill an overall purpose. This is, for instance, the case for autonomous driving where individual vehicles form a ...
Read More
Analyzing goal variability in cyber-physical system networks

Networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems can achieve goals individual systems are incapable of achieving on their own. However, which goals such a network can achieve depends, in part, on the networks current configuration, i.e. its composition ...
Read More
A GRL-compliant iStar extension for collaborative cyber-physical systems
Abstract
Collaborative cyber-physical systems are capable of forming networks at runtime to achieve goals that are unachievable for individual systems. They do so by connecting to each other and exchanging information that helps them coordinate their ...
Read More

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Published in
SAC '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
March 2020
2348 pages
ISBN:9781450368667
DOI:10.1145/3341105
Conference Chairs:
Chih-Cheng Hung
Kennesaw State University
,
Tomas Cerny
Baylor University
,
Program Chairs:
Dongwan Shin
New Mexico Tech
,
Alessio Bechini
University of Pisa, Italy
Copyright © 2020 ACM
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
- Published: 30 March 2020
Permissions
Request permissions about this article.
Request Permissions

Check for updates
Author Tags
GRL
cardinality-based feature models
cyber-physical systems
goal modeling
Qualifiers
- research-article
Conference

Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%
Funding Sources
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics

Article Metrics
- 6
  Total Citations
  View Citations
- 256
  Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)19
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Cited By
View all

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Goal-based configuration analysis for networks of collaborative cyber-physical systems

SAC '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

ABSTRACT

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Goal modeling for collaborative groups of cyber-physical systems with GRL: reflections on applicability and limitations based on two studies conducted in industry

Analyzing goal variability in cyber-physical system networks

A GRL-compliant iStar extension for collaborative cyber-physical systems