On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations
Thomas Thüm, Christoph Seidl, Ina Schaefer MODEVAR, September 10, 2019
On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Thomas Thm, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Thomas Thm, Christoph Seidl, Ina Schaefer MODEVAR, September 10, 2019 Part I The Need for Variability Modeling The Situation 110 Years Ago: Ford Model T Any customer can have a car
Thomas Thüm, Christoph Seidl, Ina Schaefer MODEVAR, September 10, 2019
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 3
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 4
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 5
A car without Microsoft Office 365?!?
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 5
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 6
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 6
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 7
Thousands of features and constraints, increases over time No modularity or information hiding Temporal elements Typically not modeled with feature models
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 9
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 10
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 11
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 12
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 12
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 13
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 13
1,00E+00 1,00E+03 1,00E+06 1,00E+09 1,00E+12 1,00E+15 1,00E+18 1,00E+21 1,00E+24 1,00E+27 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of Valid Configurations (logarithmic) Year
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 14
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 16
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 17
Page 1 of 1 11/03/2019 file:///C:/Users/tthuem/git/Paper/pics/versioncontrol/git-branches.svg Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 18
Major Levels: expressiveness aligns with solver classes propositional logic: SAT, binary decision diagram (BDD), #SAT, . . . first-order logic: satisfiable modulo theory (SMT), constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)?, . . . more needed? answer set programming (ASP)? pseudo-boolean satisfiability (PB-SAT)? . . .
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 19
Major Levels: expressiveness aligns with solver classes propositional logic: SAT, binary decision diagram (BDD), #SAT, . . . first-order logic: satisfiable modulo theory (SMT), constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)?, . . . more needed? answer set programming (ASP)? pseudo-boolean satisfiability (PB-SAT)? . . . Minor Levels: differing expressiveness within major levels align with expressiveness of state-of-the-art languages meet requirements from typical application domains example: supported tree and cross-tree constraints
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 19
Major Levels: expressiveness aligns with solver classes propositional logic: SAT, binary decision diagram (BDD), #SAT, . . . first-order logic: satisfiable modulo theory (SMT), constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)?, . . . more needed? answer set programming (ASP)? pseudo-boolean satisfiability (PB-SAT)? . . . Minor Levels: differing expressiveness within major levels align with expressiveness of state-of-the-art languages meet requirements from typical application domains example: supported tree and cross-tree constraints Orthogonal Levels: independent of expressiveness Modularity with feature-model interfaces or slicing Feature versions and temporal validity with hyper and temporal feature models
Thomas Thüm On Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations Slide 19
The Situation 110 Years Ago: Ford Model T Today: Every Second Car has a Unique Configuration Constraints Among Features are Challenging Variability Models as Central Knowledge Database
Real-World Variability Modeling One Product Line Specified with Different "Languages" Variability Modeling par Excellence Clone-and-Own of Variability Models Anomalies in Variability Models Configuration Spaces Tend to Grow Over Time
Why to Use SAT Solvers for Variability Analysis? Missing Analyses for Feature Attributes Industry Demands for Modularity and Branching Language Levels for Feature Modeling Notations