Advertisement

Requirements Modeling for Families of Complex Systems

  • Pierre America
  • Jan van Wijgerden
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1951)

Abstract

This paper introduces an approach to the specification of system families. The main ingredient of this approach is the definition of use cases hand in hand with a requirements object model. Instead of specifying individual systems, we specify a domain, i.e., a conceptual space of possible systems, in which individual systems can be defined by fixing a number of variation points. In that way we obtain a strong cohesion within the family and concise specifications of its members. We also describe a process suitable for this specification approach and indicate how the transition to the design phase can take place. Our approach was validated in one large project and several smaller ones.

Keywords

Requirement Specification Object Model Product Family Variation Point Requirement Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Booch, G., Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Douglass, B.P.: Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Overgaard, G.: Object- Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. ACM Press/Addison- Wesley (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaindl, H.: Difficulties in the Transition from OO Analysis to Design. IEEE Software, 94–102 (September/October 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obbink, H., van Ommering, R., Wijnstra, J.G., America, P.: Component oriented platform architecting for software intensive product families. In: Symposium on Software Architectures and Component Technology, Enschede, The Netherlands, January 20-21. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pronk, B.J.: Medical Product Line Architectures – 12 years of experience. In: Proceedings of the First IFIP Working Conference on Software Architecture (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warmer, J.B., Kleppe, A.G.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling With UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wijnstra, J.G.: Component frameworks for a medical imaging product family. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) IW-SAPF 2000. LNCS, vol. 1951, pp. 15–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre America
    • 1
  • Jan van Wijgerden
    • 2
  1. 1.Philips ResearchEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philips Medical SystemsBestThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations