Formal approach to integrating feature and architecture models

28Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

If we model a family of software applications with a feature model and an architecture model, we are describing the same subject from different perspectives. Hence, we are running the risk of inconsistencies. For instance, the feature model might allow feature configurations that are not realizable by the architecture. In this paper we tackle this problem by providing a formalization of dependencies between features and components. Further, we demonstrate that this formalization offers a better understanding of the modeled concepts. Moreover, we propose automated techniques that derive additional information and provide feedback to the user. Finally, we discuss how some of these techniques can be implemented. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

References Powered by Scopus

Circumscription-A form of non-monotonic reasoning

1393Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas

843Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Extending and implementing the stable model semantics

703Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Cool features and tough decisions: A comparison of variability modeling approaches

272Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evolution of the linux kernel variability model

120Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Feature and meta-models in clafer: Mixed, specialized, and coupled

82Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Janota, M., & Botterweck, G. (2008). Formal approach to integrating feature and architecture models. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 4961 LNCS, pp. 31–45). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78743-3_3

Readers over time

‘10‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘2302468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 23

72%

Researcher 4

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

9%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 29

91%

Chemistry 1

3%

Social Sciences 1

3%

Engineering 1

3%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0