Advertisement

Representing Requirements on Generic Software in an Application Family Model

  • Mike Mannion
  • Oliver Lewis
  • Hermann Kaindl
  • Gianluca Montroni
  • Joe Wheadon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1844)

Abstract

Generic software is built in order to deal with the variability of a set of similar software systems and to make their construction cheaper and more efficient. A typical approach to representing requirements variability in generic software is through the use of parameters, i.e. quantitative variability. Qualitative variability, however, is often dealt with in an implicit and ad hoc manner. In previous work, we used discriminants for representing qualitative variability in a model of application family requirements. In this paper we extend this approach by combining discriminants and parameters for modelling qualitative and quantitative variability. Using this approach, we present a case study in the domain of spacecraft control operating systems and focus on building an application family model. The experience suggests that our approach provides a clean and well-defined way of representing the variability of generic software.

Keywords

Mobile Phone Requirement Engineer Generic Software Software Reuse Incoming Call 
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.
    Cohen, S., Hess, J., Kang, K., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Requirement-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasability Study, Special Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coplien, J., Hoffman, D., Weiss, D.: Commonality and Variability in Software Engineering. IEEE Software 15(6), 37–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Space Agency PSS-05-1 (1991-1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finkelstein, A.: Reuse of Formatted Requirements Specifications. Software Engineering Journal 3(5), 186–197 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gomaa, H.: Reusable Software Requirements and Architectures for Families of Systems. Journal of Syst. Software 28(11), 189–202 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro, M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int’l Conf. on Software Reuse (ICSR5), Vancouver, pp. 76–85 (June 1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997) ISBN 0-201-92476-5Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeng, J.-J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Specification Matching for Software Reuse: A Foundation. In: Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Software Reuse, Seattle, Washington, pp. 97–105 (April 1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keepence, B., Mannion, M., Smith, S.: SMARTRe Requirements: Writing Reusable Requirements. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symp. on Eng. of Computer-based Systems, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 27–34 (March 1995) ISBN 0-7803-2531-1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lam, W., McDermid, J.A., Vickers, A.J.: Ten Steps Towards Systematic Requirements Reuse. Requirements Engineering Journal 2(2), 102–113 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maiden, N., Sutcliffe, A.: Exploiting Reusable Specifications Through Analogy. CACM 35(4), 55–64 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mannion, M., Keepence, B., Kaindl, H., Wheadon, J.: Reusing Single System Requirements From Application Family Requirements. In: Proc. of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), pp. 453–462 (May 1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massonet, P., van Lamsweerde, A.: Analogical Reuse of Frameworks. In: Proc. of the 3rd IEEE Int.l Symp. on Requirements Engineering, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, pp. 26–33 (January 1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mili, H., Mili, F., Mili, A.: Reusing Software: Issues and Research Directions. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 21(6), 528–561 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mili, A., Yacoub, S., Addy, E., Mili, H.: Toward An Engineering Discipline of Software Reuse. IEEE Software 16(5), 22–31 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook Version 2.0, STARS-VCA025/ 001/00, Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, Hanscom, AFB, MA 01731-2816 (June 14, 1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan, K., Matthews, B.: Matching Conceptual Graphs as an Aid to Requirements Reuse. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symp. on Requirements Engineering, San Diego, 112–120 (January 1993) ISBN 0- 8186-3120-1Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SCOS-2000 User Requirements Document, SCOSII-URD-4.0, Issue 4, Draft 1 (October 20, 1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    SCOS-2000 Commanding Software Requirements Document, S2K-MCS-SRD-0002-TOS-GCI, Issue 2.0 (May 21, 1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation, Reuse-Driven Processes Guidebook, SPC-92019-CMC, SPC Bldg 2214 Rock Hill Rd, Herndon, Virginia (November 1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutcliffe, A.: A Conceptual Framework for Requirements Engineering. Requirements Engineering Journal 1(3), 170–189 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Mannion
    • 1
  • Oliver Lewis
    • 2
  • Hermann Kaindl
    • 3
  • Gianluca Montroni
    • 4
  • Joe Wheadon
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ComputingGlasgow Caledonian UniversityUK
  2. 2.School of ComputingNapier UniversityEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Siemens AG ÖsterreichViennaAustria
  4. 4.European Space Operations CentreDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations