An Approach to Develop Requirement as a Core Asset in Product Line

  • Mikyeong Moon
  • Keunhyuk Yeom
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3107)


The methodologies of product-line engineering emphasize proactive reuse to construct high-quality, less costly products. The requirements for a product line are written for the group of systems as a whole, with requirements for individual systems specified by a delta or an increment to the generic set [1]. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and explicitly denote the regions of commonality and points of variation at the requirement level. In this paper, we suggest a method for producing requirements that will be a core asset in the product line. Briefly, requirements for families of similar systems (i.e. domain) are collected and generalized which are then analyzed and modeled. The domain requirement as a core asset explicitly manages the commonality and variability. Through this method, the reuse of domain requirements can be enhanced.


Functional Requirement Variation Point Software Product Line Requirement Engineer Quality Item 
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.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muthig, D., Atkinson, C.: Model-Driven Product Line Architecture. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 110–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faulk, S.R.: Product-line requirements specification (PRS): an approach and case study. In: Proceedings. Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 48–55 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moon, M., Yeom, K.: Domain Design Method to Support Effective Reuse in Component-Based Software Development. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research & Applications, San Francisco, USA, pp. 149–154 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creps, D., Klingler, C., Levine, L., Allemang, D.: Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook Version 2.0. In: Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems, (STARS) (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berard, M.: Essays in Object-Oriented Software Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wierzbicka, A.: Semantic Primitives. Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements Engineering with Viewpoints. Software Engineering Journal 11(1), 5–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns 2/E: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Firesmith, D.G.: Use Case Modeling Guidelines. In: Proceedings of Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, TOOLS 30., August 1999, pp. 184–193 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse – Architecture, Process, and Organization for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (January 1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sommerville, I., Kotonya, G.: Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. John Wiley & Son Ltd, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In: The Future of Software Engineering, Special Issue 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 37–46. ACM-IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuusela, J., Savolainen, J.: Requirements Engineering for Product Families. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’00), Limeric, Ireland, June 2000, pp. 60–68 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson, J.M., Heimdahl, M.P.E.: Structuring product family requirements for ndimensional and hierarchical product lines. Requirements Engineering 8, 42–54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chastek, G., Donohoe, P., Kang, K., Thiel, S.: Product Line Analysis: A Practical Introdution (CMU/SEI-2001-TR-001), Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro., M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, Canada, pp. 76–85 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coplien, J., Hoffman, D., Weiss, D.: Commonality and variability in software engineering. IEEE software 15(6), 37–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations