SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

descriptions must also b e configured by eliminating the steps
that are annotated with features that were not chosen.
IV. RELATED WORK
Compared to G2SPL [3], our work has two main
differences: (i) it uses PLUSS scenarios to capture behavioral
characteristics of the SPL, while G2SPL cannot capture the
SPL’s behavior; (ii) our approach allows to ch oose a
configuration based on the priority to the softgoals, while
G2SPL does not provide such a mechanism.
Asadi et al. [12] also proposed a GORE approach for SPL
using i*. It u ses annotations on the feature model do relate
goals and features. The advantage of this approach is that it has
tool support, providing an automatic way to obtain the
product’s features from selected goals. However, the FM is not
obtained systematically from stakeholders’ goals, it is created
separately and then annotated with goals. This approach does
not capture the behavior of the SPL either.
Santos et al. [13] proposed a bidirectional mapping between
feature models and goal models in the PL-AOVgraph
approach. Thus, not only the FM can be obtained from the goal
model, as in G2SPL and GS2SPL, but the goal model can be
derived from the feature model too. The bidirectional mapping
has tool support, but it covers only the Domain Engineering
requirements phase, i.e., it does not provide a way to configure
products.
Mussbacher et al. [14] proposed ASF (AoURN-based SPL
Framework), a framework that integrates goal models, feature
models and scenarios and is completely tool supported. The
goal models are described in GRL (Goal-oriented Requirement
Language), another i* extension, and is related to the FM
through the feature impact model. Scenarios are described in
UCM (Use Case Maps), a visual notation whose elements may
be associated with GRL elements. However, this association
must be defined by the Domain Engineer and there are no
mapping rules defined on the framework. Goals and softgoals
in GRL may have an “importance” attribute that allows
stakeholders to indicate how important these elements are for
them. This attribute is used during product configuration to
prioritize the most important goals and softgoals. This
represents an advantage compared to GS2SPL, since our
approach prioritizes only softgoals.
Despite the fact that all ASF artifacts may be associated
with each other, they are created separately, i.e., it is n ot
possible to systematically obtain one model from another.
Besides, the elaboration of the feature impact model is,
according to Mussbacher et al. [14], a complex task, since it
consists of a goal graph for each feature, describing how a
feature affects stakeholders’ goals.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
This paper presented a GORE approach for SPL, called
Goals and Scenarios to Software Product Line (GS2SPL).
GS2SPL allows the domain engineer to generate feature
models and use case scenarios from i* goal models. The benefit
of this generation is that the most relevant features and use
cases to the stakeholders’ goals are obtained in a systematic
way. Another contribution of our approach is the inclusion of a
configuration process that allows the clients to choose their
product configuration on a higher abstraction level. Instead of
choosing specific features, they can choose the goals they want
to achieve. The configuration process also takes softgoals
(NFRs) into account, providing a way to rank possible variants
according to the softgoals’ priority given by the client.
As future work, we plan to: (i) perform case studies in
different domains to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
GS2SPL; (ii) develop tool support for our approach; (iii)
investigate how to identify feature model constraints from i*
models; and (iv) investigate how to take feature interactions
into account when generating use case scenarios.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Lamsweerde, “Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided
tour,” in Proc. of t he 5 th IEEE International Requirements Engineering
Conf. (RE’01), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 249-263, 2001.
[2] C. Borba and C. Silva, “A comparison of goal-oriented approaches to
model software product lines variability,” in LNCS, vol. 5833, pp.244-
253, Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[3] C. Silva, C. Borba, J. Castro, “A goal oriented approach to identify and
configure feature models for software product lines,” in Proc. of the 14 th
Workshop on Requirements Engineering (WER’11), Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, pp. 395-406, 2011.
[4] N. Maiden, I. Alexander. Scenarios, stories, use cases: through the
systems development life-cycle. 1 st ed., Wiley, 2004.
[5] P. Clements and L. Northrop. Software product lines: practices and
patterns. 1 st ed., Addison-Wesley, 2002.
[6] K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F. van der Linden. Software product line
engineering: foundations, principles, and techniques. 1 st ed., Springer,
2005.
[7] E. Yu, “Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering,” in
Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering, E. Yu, P. Giorgini, N.
Maiden, J. Mylopoulos, 1 st ed., MIT Press, 2011, ch. 2, pp. 11-152.
[8] E. Figueiredo et al., “Evolving software product lines with aspects: an
empirical study on design stability,” in Proc. of the 30 th International
Conference on Software Software Engineering (ICSE’08), Leipzig,
Germany, pp. 261-270, 2008.
[9] M. Eriksson, J. Börstler, K. Borg, “Managing requirements
specifications for product lines – an approach and industry case study,”
in Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 82, n. 3, pp. 435-447, 2009.
[10] J. Castro, F. Alencar, V. Santander, C. Silva, “Integration of i* and
oject-oriented models,” in Social Modeling for Requirements
Engineering, E. Yu, P. Giorgini, N. Maiden, J. Mylopoulos, 1 st ed., MIT
Press, 2011, ch. 13, pp. 457-483.
[11] C. Lima, “E-SPL – a ap proach for requirements phase in domain
engineering and application engineering with goal models,” (in
Portuguese: “E-SPL - um a abordagem para a f ase de requisitos na
engenharia de domínio e na engenharia de aplicação com modelos de
objetivos”) Dissertation (MSc), Center of Informatics, UFPE, Brazil,
2011.
[12] M. Asadi, E. Bagheri, D. Gasevic, M. Hatala, B. Mohabbati, “Goaldriven
software product line engineering,” in Proc. of th e 26 th ACM
Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’11), Taichung, Taiwan, pp.
691-698, 2011.
[13] L. Santos, L. Silva, T. Batista, “On the integration of the feature model
and PL-AOVGraph,” in Proc. of the 2011 International Workshop on
Early Aspects (EA’11), Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, pp. 31-36, 2011.
[14] G. Mussbacher, J. Araújo, A. Moreira, D. Amyot, “AoURN-based
modeling and analysis of software product lines,” in Soft ware Quality
Journal (online first), 2011.
656