research-article

A framework for automated multi-stage and multi-step product configuration of cyber-physical systems

Authors:

Safdar Aqeel Safdar,

Kunming NieAuthors Info & Claims

Software and Systems Modeling, Volume 20, Issue 1

Pages 211 - 265

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-020-00803-8

Published: 01 February 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Product line engineering (PLE) has been employed to large-scale cyber-physical systems (CPSs) to provide customization based on users’ needs. A PLE methodology can be characterized by its support for capturing and managing the abstractions as commonalities and variabilities and the automation of the configuration process for effective selection and customization of reusable artifacts. The automation of a configuration process heavily relies on the captured abstractions and formally specified constraints using a well-defined modeling methodology. Based on the results of our previous work and a thorough literature review, in this paper, we propose a conceptual framework to support multi-stage and multi-step automated product configuration of CPSs, including a comprehensive classification of constraints and a list of automated functionalities of a CPS configuration solution. Such a framework can serve as a guide for researchers and practitioners to evaluate an existing CPS PLE solution or devise a novel CPS PLE solution. To validate the framework, we conducted three real-world case studies. Results show that the framework fulfills all the requirements of the case studies in terms of capturing and managing variabilities and constraints. Results of the literature review indicate that the framework covers all the functionalities concerned by the literature, suggesting that the framework is complete for enabling the maximum automation of configuration in CPS PLE.

References

[1]

Derler P, Lee EA, and Vincentelli AS Modeling cyber-physical systems Proc. IEEE Spec. Issue CPS 2012 100 1 13-28

[2]

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs). Available from: http://cyberphysicalsystems.org/

[3]

Rawat DB, Rodrigues JJ, and Stojmenovic I Cyber-Physical Systems: From Theory to Practice 2015 Boca Raton CRC Press

[4]

Ma T, Ali S, and Yue T Modeling foundations for executable model-based testing of self-healing cyber-physical systems Softw. Syst. Model. 2019 18 5 2843-2873

[5]

Zhang, M., et al.: Uncertainty-wise cyber-physical system test modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 1–40 (2017)

[6]

Nie, K., et al.: Constraints: the core of supporting automated product configuration of cyber-physical systems. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS). Springer (2013)

[7]

Iglesias, A., et al.: Product line engineering of monitoring functionality in industrial cyber-physical systems: a domain analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Systems and Software Product Line Conference-Volume A. ACM (2017)

[8]

Arrieta A et al. Search-Based test case prioritization for simulation-Based testing of cyber-Physical system product lines J. Syst. Softw. 2019 149 1-34

[9]

Lu H et al. Model-based Incremental Conformance Checking to Enable Interactive Product Configuration Inf. Softw. Technol. (IST) 2015 72 68-89

[10]

Lu, H., et al.: Nonconformity resolving recommendations for product line configuration. In: International Conference on Software Testing, p. 57–68. IEEE (2016)

[11]

ISO: Software and systems engineering—Reference model for product line engineering and management. ISO (2013)

[12]

Yue, T., Ali, S., Selic. B.: Cyber-physical system product line engineering: comprehensive domain analysis and experience report. In: Proceeding of International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). ACM (2015)

[13]

Yue, T., Ali, S., Selic, B.: Cyber-physical system product line engineering: comprehensive domain analysis and experience report. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line. ACM (2015)

[14]

Czarnecki K, Helsen S, and Eisenecker U Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 2005 10 2 143-169

[15]

OCL: Object Constraint Language Specification, Version 2.2. Object Management Group (OMG) (2011)

[16]

Safdar, S.A., et al.: Evaluating variability modeling techniques for supporting cyber-physical system product line engineering. In: Proceeding of International Conference on System Analysis and Modeling (SAM). Springer (2016)

[17]

ULMA Handling Systems.: (2002) Available from: http://www.ulmahandling.com

[18]

Ali, S., et al.: Empowering testing activities with modeling-achievements and insights from nine years of collaboration with cisco. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). Springer (2017)

[19]

Behjati R, Nejati S, and Briand LC Architecture-level configuration of large-scale embedded software systems ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 2014 23 3 25

[20]

Safdar, S.A., et al.: Mining cross product line rules with multi-objective search and machine learning. In: Proceeding of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO). Berlin, Germany: ACM (2017)

[21]

Zhang, M., et al.: Understanding uncertainty in cyber-physical systems: a conceptual model. In: European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications. Springer (2016)

[22]

Chakravarthy, V., Regehr, J., Eide, E.: Edicts: implementing features with flexible binding times. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development. ACM (2008)

[23]

Beuche, D., Weiland, J.: Managing flexibility: modeling binding-times in simulink. In: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications. Springer (2009)

[24]

Hotz, L., et al.: Evaluation across multiple views for variable automation systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line. ACM (2015)

[25]

OMG: Systems Modeling Language (SysML) v1.4, http://sysml.org/ (2015)

[26]

The UML MARTE profile, http://www.omgmarte.org/

[27]

Selic B and Gérard S Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems with UML and MARTE: Developing Cyber-Physical Systems 2013 Amsterdam Elsevier

[28]

Bagheri, E., et al.: Configuring software product line feature models based on stakeholders’ soft and hard requirements. In: Proceeding of International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Springer (2010)

[29]

Nadi S et al. Where do configuration constraints stem from? an extraction approach and an empirical study IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (TSE) 2015 41 8 820-841

[30]

Czarnecki, K., She, S., Wasowski, A.: Sample spaces and feature models: there and back again. In: Proceeding of International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). IEEE (2008)

[31]

Bécan, G., et al.: Synthesis of attributed feature models from product descriptions. In: Proceeding of International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). ACM (2015)

[32]

Behjati, R., et al.: SimPL: a product-line modeling methodology for families of integrated control systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2013)

[33]

Jaring, M., Bosch, B.: A taxonomy and hierarchy of variability dependencies in software product family engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International on Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2004. COMPSAC 2004. IEEE (2004)

[34]

Safdar SA et al. Using multi-objective search and machine learning to infer rules constraining product configurations Autom. Softw. Eng. 2019 27 1 1-62

[35]

Czarnecki, K., Pietroszek, K.: Verifying feature-based model templates against well-formedness OCL constraints. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, pp. 211–220. ACM: Portland, Oregon, USA (2006)

[36]

Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study (CMU/SEI-90-TR-021). In: Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A. (eds.) Secondary Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study (CMU/SEI-90-TR-021), Secondary RN (1990)

[37]

Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Staged configuration using feature models. In: Software Product Lines, pp. 266–283. Springer (2004)

[38]

Haugen, O.: Common Variability Language (CVL). OMG Revised Submission (2012)

[39]

Lu, H., et al.: Zen-CC: an automated and incremental conformance checking solution to support interactive product configuration. In: 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 13–22. IEEE (2014)

[40]

Vierhauser, M., et al.: Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 63–72. ACM: Antwerp, Belgium (2010)

[41]

Gomaa, H., Shin, M.E.: A multiple-view meta-modeling approach for variability management in software product lines. In: International Conference on Software Reuse. Springer (2004)

[42]

El-Sharkawy, S., Schmid, K.: Supporting the effective configuration of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM (2012)

[43]

Mendonça M et al. Collaborative product configuration J. Softw. 2008 3 2 69

[44]

Mendonça, M., Bartolomei, T.T., Cowan, D.: Decision-making coordination in collaborative product configuration. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on APPLIED Computing. ACM (2008)

[45]

Ali, S., et al.: Insights on the use of OCL in diverse industrial applications. In: International Conference on System Analysis and Modeling. Springer (2014)

[46]

Myllärniemi, V., et al.: Kumbang configurator–a configuration tool for software product families. In: 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Citeseer (2005)

[47]

Czarnecki, K., et al.: fmp and fmp2rsm: eclipse plug-ins for modeling features using model templates. In: OOPSLA ‘05 Companion. ACM (2005)

[48]

La Rosa M et al. Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration Softw. Syst. Model. 2009 8 2 251-274

[49]

Rabiser, R., et al.: DOPLER, decision oriented product line engineering for effective reuse. Available from: http://ase.jku.at/dopler/

[50]

Lettner, D., et al.: Supporting end users with business calculations in product configuration. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference-Volume 1. ACM (2012)

[51]

Zhou C, Lin Z, and Liu C Customer-driven product configuration optimization for assemble-to-order manufacturing enterprises Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008 38 1 185-194

[52]

Pure-Systems. Pure::Variants available at: http://www.pure-systems.com/ (2017)

[53]

Sinnema M et al. Nord RL et al. Covamof: a framework for modeling variability in software product families Software Product Lines 2004 Heidelberg Springer 197-213

[54]

Mendonca, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.: SPLOT: software product lines online tools. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. ACM (2009)

[55]

Antkiewicz, M. Czarnecki, K.: FeaturePlugin: feature modeling plug-in for Eclipse. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA, workshop on eclipse technology eXchange. ACM (2004)

[56]

Hong, L., Tao, Y., Shaukat, A.: Zen-configurator: interactive and optimal configuration of cyber physical system product lines. https://www.simula.no/research/projects/zen-configurator-interactive-and-optimal-configuration-cyber-physical-system (2017)

[57]

Thüm T et al. FeatureIDE: an extensible framework for feature-oriented software development Sci. Comput. Program. 2014 79 70-85

[58]

Nöhrer A and Egyed A C2O configurator: a tool for guided decision-making Autom. Softw. Eng. 2013 20 2 265-296

[59]

Krueger, C.W.: Biglever software gears and the 3-tiered spl methodology. In: Companion to the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems and Applications Companion. ACM (2007)

[60]

Heider W, Rabiser R, and Grünbacher P Facilitating the evolution of products in product line engineering by capturing and replaying configuration decisions Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 2012 14 5 613-630

[61]

Mazo, R., et al.: Using constraint programming to verify DOPLER variability models. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM (2011)

[62]

Dhungana D, Grünbacher P, and Rabiser R The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study Autom. Softw. Eng. 2011 18 1 77-114

[63]

Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S., Hoekstra, P.: The COVAMOF derivation process. Reuse of Off-the-Shelf Components, pp. 101–114 (2006)

[64]

Myllärniemi, V.: Kumbang Configurator—a tool for configuring software product families. Master’s thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering (2005)

[65]

Nie, K., Yue, T., Ali, S.: Towards a search-based interactive configuration of cyber physical system product lines. In: Demos/Posters/StudentResearch@ MoDELS (2013)

[66]

Yue, T., et al.: Search-based decision ordering to facilitate product line engineering of cyber-physical system. In: 2016 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). IEEE (2016)

[67]

Rabiser, R., Grunbacher, P., Lehofer, M.: A qualitative study on user guidance capabilities in product configuration tools. In: 2012 Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE (2012)

[68]

Heidenreich, F.: Towards systematic ensuring well-formedness of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development. ACM (2009)

[69]

Hwan, C., Kim, P., Czarnecki, K.: Synchronizing cardinality-based feature models and their specializations. In: Model Driven Architecture–Foundations and Applications. Springer (2005)

[70]

Dhungana D, Grünbacher P, and Rabiser R DecisionKing: a flexible and extensible tool for integrated variability modeling VaMoS 2007 2007 01

[71]

Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories (2005)

[72]

Alférez M et al. Schmid K et al. Supporting consistency checking between features and software product line use scenarios Top Productivity through Software Reuse 2011 Berlin Springer 20-35

[73]

Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P., Holl, G.: Improving awareness during product derivation in multi-user multi product line environments (2010)

[74]

De Mendonça, M.F.: Collaborative feature-based product configuration in software product lines (2007)

[75]

Heider, W., et al.: Using regression testing to analyze the impact of changes to variability models on products. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference-Volume 1. ACM (2012)

[76]

Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., Ali, N.: Variability management in software product lines: a systematic review. In: 13th International Software Product Line Conference, pp. 81–90 (2009)

[77]

Arrieta, A., Sagardui, G., Etxeberria, L.: A comparative on variability modelling and management approach in simulink for embedded systems. V Jornadas de Computación Empotrada, ser. JCE (2014)

[78]

Djebbi, O., Salinesi, C.: Criteria for comparing requirements variability modeling notations for product lines. In: 4th International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering. IEEE (2006)

[79]

Sinnema M and Deelstra S Classifying variability modeling techniques Inf. Softw. Technol. 2007 49 7 717-739

[80]

Eichelberger, H., Schmid, K.: A systematic analysis of textual variability modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM (2013)

[81]

Hartmann, H., Trew, T.: Using feature diagrams with context variability to model multiple product lines for software supply chains. In: Proceeding of International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). IEEE (2008)

[82]

Clauß, M., Jena, I.: Modeling variability with UML. In: GCSE 2001 Young Researchers Workshop. Citeseer (2001)

[83]

Ziadi, T., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Towards a UML profile for software product lines. In: Software Product-Family Engineering, pp. 129–139, Springer (2004)

[84]

Dhungana, D., Grünbacher, P., Rabiser, R.: Domain-specific adaptations of product line variability modeling. In: Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 238–251, Springer (2007)

[85]

Sinnema, M., et al.: Covamof: a framework for modeling variability in software product families. In: International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Springer (2004)

[86]

Haugen, Ø., Øgård, O.: BVR–better variability results. In: System Analysis and Modeling: Models and Reusability, pp. 1–15. Springer (2014)

[87]

Berger, T., et al.: A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software intensive Systems. ACM (2013)

[88]

Safdar, S.A., Iqbal, M.Z., Khan, M.U.: Empirical evaluation of UML modeling tools–a controlled experiment. In: European Conference on Modeling Foundations and Applications, pp. 33–44. Springer: Italy (2015)

[89]

Clauß, M.: Generic modeling using UML extensions for variability. In: Workshop on Domain Specific Visual Languages at OOPSLA (2001)

[90]

Van Deursen A and Klint P Domain-specific language design requires feature descriptions CIT J Comput Inf Technol 2002 10 1 1-17

[91]

Batory, D.: Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: SPLC. Springer (2005)

[92]

Abele A et al. The CVM framework-a prototype tool for compositional variability management VaMoS 2010 10 101-105

[93]

Acher M et al. Familiar: a domain-specific language for large scale management of feature models Sci. Comput. Program. 2013 78 6 657-681

[94]

Boucher, Q., et al.: Introducing TVL, a text-based feature modelling language. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS’10), Linz, Austria, January (2010)

[95]

BVR Eclipse Based Tool. Available from: https://github.com/SINTEF-9012/bvr

[96]

Bühne, S., Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K.: Why is it not sufficient to model requirements variability with feature models. In: Proceedings of Workshop: Automotive Requirements Engineering (AURE04), Los Alamitos. Citeseer (2004)

[97]

Kunming, N., Shaukat Ali, T.Y.: Towards a search based interactive configuration of cyber physical system product lines. In: Demos/Posters/StudentResearch@ACM/IEEE 16th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 71–75 (2013)

[98]

Classen A, Hubaux A, and Heymans P A formal semantics for multi-level staged configuration VaMoS 2009 9 51-60

[99]

Chavarriaga, J., et al.: Supporting multi-level configuration with feature-solution graphs formal semantics and alloy implementation. In: Chavarriaga, J., et al. (Ed.) Secondary Supporting Multi-level Configuration with Feature-Solution Graphs Formal Semantics and Alloy Implementation, Secondary. RN (2013)

[100]

Chavarriaga, J., et al.: Propagating decisions to detect and explain conflicts in a multi-step configuration process. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer (2014)

[101]

Urli, S., Blay-Fornarino, M., Collet, P.: Handling complex configurations in software product lines: a tooled approach. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference-Volume 1 (2014)

[102]

Abbasi, E.K., Hubaux, A., Heymans, P.: A toolset for feature-based configuration workflows. In: 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE (2011)

[103]

Schroeter, J., et al.: Dynamic configuration management of cloud-based applications. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference-Volume 2 (2012)

[104]

Hubaux A et al. Supporting multiple perspectives in feature-based configuration Softw. Syst. Model. 2013 12 3 641-663

[105]

White J et al. Evolving feature model configurations in software product lines J. Syst. Softw. 2014 87 119-136

[106]

White, J., et al.: Automated reasoning for multi-step feature model configuration problems. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference. Carnegie Mellon University (2009)

[107]

Czarnecki K, Helsen S, and Eisenecker U Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 2005 10 1 7-29

[108]

Janota, M., Kiniry, J.: Reasoning about feature models in higher-order logic. In: Software Product Line Conference, 2007. SPLC 2007. 11th International. IEEE (2007)

[109]

Hubaux A Feature-Based Configuration: Collaborative, Dependable, and Controlled 2012 Belgium University of Namur

[110]

Cisco C-Series Video Conferencing Systems. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collaboration-endpoints/telepresence-integrator-c-series/index.html (2012)

Cited By

Vogel-Heuser BNeumann EZoitl AFernandez ARabiser RFadhlillah H(2021)An International Case Study on Control Software Development in Large-Scale Plant Manufacturing Companies of One Industrial Sector at Different LocationsIECON 2021 – 47th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589516(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589516

Index Terms

A framework for automated multi-stage and multi-step product configuration of cyber-physical systems
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Embedded and cyber-physical systems
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
  2. Software notations and tools
    1. Software configuration management and version control systems

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Pattern-based Interactive Configuration Derivation for Cyber-physical System Product Lines
Special Issue on Self-Awareness in Resource Constrained CPS and Regular Papers

Deriving a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) product from a product line requires configuring hundreds to thousands of configurable parameters of components and devices from multiple domains, e.g., computing, control, and communication. A fully automated ...
Multistage configuration trees for managing product family trees
SPLC '13: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference

It is not unusual for commercial product line organizations to manufacture millions of product instances every year, in thousands of different "flavors". The scale and scope of diversity in product lines of this size can be high, creating significant ...
Model-based incremental conformance checking to enable interactive product configuration

ContextModel-based product line engineering (PLE) is a paradigm that can enable automated product configuration of large-scale software systems, in which models are used as an abstract specification of commonalities and variabilities of products of a ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)

Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) Volume 20, Issue 1

Feb 2021

280 pages

ISSN:1619-1366

Issue’s Table of Contents

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2021

Accepted: 15 April 2020

Revision received: 26 February 2020

Received: 22 August 2019

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Norges Forskningsråd

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 11 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Vogel-Heuser BNeumann EZoitl AFernandez ARabiser RFadhlillah H(2021)An International Case Study on Control Software Development in Large-Scale Plant Manufacturing Companies of One Industrial Sector at Different LocationsIECON 2021 – 47th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589516(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589516

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents