Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics: (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007)

Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Patrick Heymans, Jean-Christophe Trigaux, Yves Bontemps

Research output: Contribution in Book/Catalog/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Feature Diagrams (FD) are a family of popular modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. FD were first introduced by Kang as part of the FODA (Feature Oriented Domain Analysis) method back in 1990. Since then, various extensions of FODA FD were devised to compensate for a purported ambiguity and lack of precision and expressiveness. However, they never received a proper formal semantics, which is the hallmark of precision and unambiguity as well as a prerequisite for efficient and safe tool automation. In this paper, we first survey FD variants. Subsequently, we generalize the various syntaxes through a generic construction called Free Feature Diagrams (FFD). Formal semantics is defined at the FFD level, which provides unambiguous definition for all the surveyed FD variants in one shot. All formalization choices found a clear answer in the original FODA FD definition, which proved that although informal and scattered throughout many pages, it suffered no ambiguity problem. Our definition has several additional advantages: it is formal, concise and generic. We thus argue that it contributes to improve the definition, understanding, comparison and reliable implementation of FD languages.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06)
EditorsMartin Glinz, Robyn Lutz
Place of PublicationMinneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA
PublisherIEEE Computer society
Pages139-148
Number of pages10
ISBN (Print)0-7695-2555-5
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Computer networks
Semantics
Requirements engineering
Automation
Modeling languages

Cite this

Schobbens, P-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J-C., & Bontemps, Y. (2006). Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics: (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007). In M. Glinz, & R. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06) (pp. 139-148). Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA: IEEE Computer society.
Schobbens, Pierre-Yves ; Heymans, Patrick ; Trigaux, Jean-Christophe ; Bontemps, Yves. / Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics : (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007). Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06). editor / Martin Glinz ; Robyn Lutz. Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA : IEEE Computer society, 2006. pp. 139-148
@inproceedings{96964dd2926747aa9f6b5382116d25d6,
title = "Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics: (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007)",
abstract = "Feature Diagrams (FD) are a family of popular modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. FD were first introduced by Kang as part of the FODA (Feature Oriented Domain Analysis) method back in 1990. Since then, various extensions of FODA FD were devised to compensate for a purported ambiguity and lack of precision and expressiveness. However, they never received a proper formal semantics, which is the hallmark of precision and unambiguity as well as a prerequisite for efficient and safe tool automation. In this paper, we first survey FD variants. Subsequently, we generalize the various syntaxes through a generic construction called Free Feature Diagrams (FFD). Formal semantics is defined at the FFD level, which provides unambiguous definition for all the surveyed FD variants in one shot. All formalization choices found a clear answer in the original FODA FD definition, which proved that although informal and scattered throughout many pages, it suffered no ambiguity problem. Our definition has several additional advantages: it is formal, concise and generic. We thus argue that it contributes to improve the definition, understanding, comparison and reliable implementation of FD languages.",
author = "Pierre-Yves Schobbens and Patrick Heymans and Jean-Christophe Trigaux and Yves Bontemps",
note = "Publication editors : Martin Glinz and Robyn Lutz",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
isbn = "0-7695-2555-5",
pages = "139--148",
editor = "Martin Glinz and Robyn Lutz",
booktitle = "Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06)",
publisher = "IEEE Computer society",

}

Schobbens, P-Y, Heymans, P, Trigaux, J-C & Bontemps, Y 2006, Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics: (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007). in M Glinz & R Lutz (eds), Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06). IEEE Computer society, Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA, pp. 139-148.

Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics : (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007). / Schobbens, Pierre-Yves; Heymans, Patrick; Trigaux, Jean-Christophe; Bontemps, Yves.

Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06). ed. / Martin Glinz; Robyn Lutz. Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA : IEEE Computer society, 2006. p. 139-148.

Research output: Contribution in Book/Catalog/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics

T2 - (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007)

AU - Schobbens, Pierre-Yves

AU - Heymans, Patrick

AU - Trigaux, Jean-Christophe

AU - Bontemps, Yves

N1 - Publication editors : Martin Glinz and Robyn Lutz

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Feature Diagrams (FD) are a family of popular modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. FD were first introduced by Kang as part of the FODA (Feature Oriented Domain Analysis) method back in 1990. Since then, various extensions of FODA FD were devised to compensate for a purported ambiguity and lack of precision and expressiveness. However, they never received a proper formal semantics, which is the hallmark of precision and unambiguity as well as a prerequisite for efficient and safe tool automation. In this paper, we first survey FD variants. Subsequently, we generalize the various syntaxes through a generic construction called Free Feature Diagrams (FFD). Formal semantics is defined at the FFD level, which provides unambiguous definition for all the surveyed FD variants in one shot. All formalization choices found a clear answer in the original FODA FD definition, which proved that although informal and scattered throughout many pages, it suffered no ambiguity problem. Our definition has several additional advantages: it is formal, concise and generic. We thus argue that it contributes to improve the definition, understanding, comparison and reliable implementation of FD languages.

AB - Feature Diagrams (FD) are a family of popular modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. FD were first introduced by Kang as part of the FODA (Feature Oriented Domain Analysis) method back in 1990. Since then, various extensions of FODA FD were devised to compensate for a purported ambiguity and lack of precision and expressiveness. However, they never received a proper formal semantics, which is the hallmark of precision and unambiguity as well as a prerequisite for efficient and safe tool automation. In this paper, we first survey FD variants. Subsequently, we generalize the various syntaxes through a generic construction called Free Feature Diagrams (FFD). Formal semantics is defined at the FFD level, which provides unambiguous definition for all the surveyed FD variants in one shot. All formalization choices found a clear answer in the original FODA FD definition, which proved that although informal and scattered throughout many pages, it suffered no ambiguity problem. Our definition has several additional advantages: it is formal, concise and generic. We thus argue that it contributes to improve the definition, understanding, comparison and reliable implementation of FD languages.

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 0-7695-2555-5

SP - 139

EP - 148

BT - Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06)

A2 - Glinz, Martin

A2 - Lutz, Robyn

PB - IEEE Computer society

CY - Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA

ER -

Schobbens P-Y, Heymans P, Trigaux J-C, Bontemps Y. Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics: (An extended version of this paper appears in Journal of Computer Networks, February 2007). In Glinz M, Lutz R, editors, Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06). Minneapolis/St. Paul Minesota, USA: IEEE Computer society. 2006. p. 139-148