Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD

Jean-Christophe Trigaux, P. Heymans, Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Andreas Classen
{"title":"Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD","authors":"Jean-Christophe Trigaux, P. Heymans, Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Andreas Classen","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feature Diagrams are a popular family of modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. In our previous research, we advocated the use of formal semantics as an indispensable means to clarify discussions about feature diagrams and to facilitate safe and efficient tool automation. We presented a generic formal semantics for feature diagram languages and criteria to compare them. However, other formal semantics exist. We already informally argued in favour of our semantics which, we think, is more abstract, more concise and not tool dependent. However, some of these claims needed to be further objectified. The purpose of this paper is to compare the semantics proposed by van Deursen and Klint with our own following the methodology of comparative semantics. To be made amenable to comparison, van Deursen and Klint's tool-based definition is first recalled and redefined by correcting some minor mistakes. Their semantics is then mapped to ours through an abstraction function. We then proceed to compare the expressiveness, embeddability and succinctness of both approaches. The study tends to confirm our semantic choices as well as our tool-independent methodology. It also demonstrates that van Deursen and Klint's language is fully expressive and provides various results likely to help tool developers, especially for implementing model transformations.","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Feature Diagrams are a popular family of modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. In our previous research, we advocated the use of formal semantics as an indispensable means to clarify discussions about feature diagrams and to facilitate safe and efficient tool automation. We presented a generic formal semantics for feature diagram languages and criteria to compare them. However, other formal semantics exist. We already informally argued in favour of our semantics which, we think, is more abstract, more concise and not tool dependent. However, some of these claims needed to be further objectified. The purpose of this paper is to compare the semantics proposed by van Deursen and Klint with our own following the methodology of comparative semantics. To be made amenable to comparison, van Deursen and Klint's tool-based definition is first recalled and redefined by correcting some minor mistakes. Their semantics is then mapped to ours through an abstraction function. We then proceed to compare the expressiveness, embeddability and succinctness of both approaches. The study tends to confirm our semantic choices as well as our tool-independent methodology. It also demonstrates that van Deursen and Klint's language is fully expressive and provides various results likely to help tool developers, especially for implementing model transformations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特征图的比较语义:FFD与vDFD
特征图是一种流行的建模语言,用于软件产品线中的工程需求。在我们之前的研究中,我们提倡使用形式语义作为一种不可缺少的手段来澄清关于特征图的讨论,并促进安全有效的工具自动化。我们提出了特征图语言的通用形式语义和比较标准。然而,存在其他形式语义。我们已经非正式地论证了我们的语义,我们认为它更抽象,更简洁,不依赖于工具。但是,其中一些要求需要进一步客观化。本文的目的是在比较语义学的方法论下,将范德尔森和克林特提出的语义学与我们自己的语义学进行比较。为了便于比较,范德尔森和克林特首先回顾了基于工具的定义,并通过纠正一些小错误来重新定义。然后通过抽象函数将它们的语义映射到我们的语义。然后,我们继续比较两种方法的表达性、可嵌入性和简洁性。这项研究倾向于确认我们的语义选择以及我们独立于工具的方法论。它还证明了van Deursen和Klint的语言是完全表达的,并提供了各种可能帮助工具开发人员的结果,特别是在实现模型转换方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD On a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Social-Agent Scenario Visualization Using a Hybrid Method for Formalizing Informal Stakeholder Requirements Inputs Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1