A Metamodel Approach to Architecture Variability in a Product Line

  • Mikyeong Moon
  • Heung Seok Chae
  • Keunhyuk Yeom
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4039)


Architecture describes the organizational structure of a system including components, interactions, and constraints. Reusable components, units of software systems, have been considered to support a considerable improvement in reducing development costs and time to market because their interfaces and functionality are explicitly defined. Instead of reusing an individual component, however, it is much more advantageous to reuse a whole design or architecture. A domain architecture, sharing a common software architecture across a product line, includes common components shared by all products and optional components exploited by a subset of the products. Variability, one of the key concepts in the development of domain architectures indicates the ability to derive various products from the product line. Clearly, we need to support variability during domain architecture development. In this paper, we suggest a metamodeling concept that enables a common under-standing of architecture variability. The domain architecture metamodel reflects the Object Management Group’s (OMGTM) Reusable Asset Specification (RAS) which addresses the engineering elements of reuse. We describe a domain architecture in which commonality and variability are explicitly considered.


Variation Point Software Product Line Domain Architecture Object Management Group Domain Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Muthig, D., Atkinson, C.: Model-Driven Product Line Architecture. In: Proc. Second Software Product Line Conference (August 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Object Management Group (OMG), Reusable Asset Specification (RAS) Version 2.2 (November 2005),
  3. 3.
    The Object Management Group (OMG), Meta-Object Facility (MOF) Version 1.4 (2003),
  4. 4.
    Duffy, D.J.: Domain Architectures: Models and Architectures for UML Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moon, M., Yeom, K., Chae, H.S.: An Approach to Developing Domain Requirements as a Core Asset Based on Commonality and Variability in a Product Line. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(7), 551–569 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang, K.C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (November 1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keepence, B., Mannion, M.: Using patterns to model variability in product families. IEEE Software 16(4), 102–108 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomma, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML, From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikyeong Moon
    • 1
  • Heung Seok Chae
    • 1
  • Keunhyuk Yeom
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringPusan National UniversityBusanKorea

Personalised recommendations