Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An integrated domain analysis approach for teleoperated systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teleoperated systems for ship hull maintenance (TOS) are robotic systems for ship maintenance tasks, such as cleaning or painting a ship’s hull. The product line paradigm has recently been applied to TOS, and a TOS reference architecture has thus been designed. However, TOS requirements specifications have not been developed in any rigorous way with reuse in mind. We therefore believe that an opportunity exists to increase the abstraction level at which stakeholders can reason about this product line. This paper reports an experience in which this TOS domain was analyzed, including the lessons learned in the construction and use of the TOS domain model. The experience is based on the application of extensions of well-known domain analysis techniques, together with the use of quality attribute templates traced to a feature model to deal with non-functional issues. A qualitative research method (action research) was used to carry out the experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fernández C, Iborra A, Álvarez B, Pastor JA, Sánchez P, Fernández-Meroño JM, Ortega N (2005) Co-operative robots in the ship repair industry. IEEE Rob Automation Mag 12(3):65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ortiz FP JA, Alvarez B, Iborra A, Ortega N, Rodriguez D, Conesa C (2007) Robots for hull ship cleaning. In: IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE 2007). Vigo, pp 2077–2082

  3. Álvarez B, Sánchez P, Pastor JA, Ortiz F (2006) An architectural framework for modeling teleoperated service robots. ROBOTICA—Int J Inf Educ Res Rob Artif Intell 24:411–418

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clements P, Northrop L (2002) Software product lines. Practices and patterns. SEI series in software engineering. Addison-Wesley, Boston

  5. van der Linden F, Schmid K, Rommes E (2007) Software product lines in action. The best industrial practice in product line engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pohl K, Böckle G, van der Linden F (2005) Software product line engineering. Foundations, principles and techniques. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Käkölä T, Dueñas JC (2006) Software product lines. Research issues in engineering and management. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rine DC, Nada N (2000) An empirical study of a software reuse reference model. Inf Softw Technol 42(1):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glass RL, Vessey I, Ramesh V (2002) Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Inf Softw Technol 44(8):491–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Comm Assoc Inf Syst 2(19):1–31 (article no 4)

    Google Scholar 

  11. EFTCoR (2005) Environmentally friendly and cost-effective technology for coating removal. In: 5th framework programme, European Community, subprogram growth reference GRD2-2001-50004. http://www.dsie.upct.es

  12. Olivé A (2004) On the role of conceptual schemas in information systems development. In: Ada-Europe. LNCS 3063. 2004. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, pp 16–34

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kang K, Cohen S, Hess J, Novak W, Peterson A (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study, technical report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

  14. Kang KC, Kim S, Lee J, Kim K, Kim GJ, Shin E (1998) FORM: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals Softw Eng 5(5):143–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chastek G, Donohoe P, Kang K, Thiel S (2001) Product line analysis: a practical introduction, technical report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-001, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

  16. Bass L, Klein M, Bachmann F (2000) Quality attribute design primitives, technical report CMU/SEI-2000-TV-017, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

  17. Kang KC, Kim S, Lee J, Lee K (1999) Feature-oriented engineering of PBX software for adaptability and reusability. Softw Pract Exp 29(10):875–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee K, Kang KC, Chae W, Choi BW (2000) Feature-based approach to object-oriented engineering of applications for reuse. Softw Pract Exp 30(9):1025–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Matinlassi M (2004) Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA. In: 26th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2004). Edinburgh, pp 127–136

  20. Trigaux J-C, Heymans P (2003) Modelling variability requirements in software product lines: a comparative survey. Computer Science Institute. University of Namur, Namur

  21. Von der Massen T, Lichter H (2002) Modeling variability by UML use case diagrams. In: International workshop on requirements engineering for product lines (REPL 2002). Essen, pp 19–25

  22. Griss M, Favaro J, d’Alessandro M (1998) Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB. In: 5th international conference on software reuse 1998. Vancouver, Canada, pp 76–85

  23. Riebisch M, Böllert K, Streitferdt D, Philipow I (2002) Extending feature diagrams with UML multiplicities. In: 6th conference on integrated design and process technology (IDPT 2002). Pasadena

  24. Svahnberg M, van Gurp J, Bosch J (2005) A taxonomy of variability realization techniques. Softw Pract Exp 35(8):705–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. RequisiteWeb (2008) IBM Rational RequisiteWeb. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/

  26. Gomaa H (2005) Designing software product lines with UML: from use cases to pattern-based software architectures. Addison-Wesley, Boston

  27. Gomaa H, Shin M (2002) Multiple-view meta-modeling of software product lines. In: 8th international conference on engineering of complex computer systems 2002, pp 238–246

  28. John I, Muthig D (2002) Tailoring use cases for product line modelling. In: International workshop on requirements engineering for product lines (REPL 2002). Essen, pp 26–32

  29. Halmans G, Pohl K (2003) Communicating the variability of a software-product family to customers. Softw Syst Model 2:15–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Eriksson M, Börstler J, Borg K (2004) Marrying features and use cases for product line requirements modeling of embeded systems. In: 4th conference on software engineering research and practice in Sweden (SERPS 2004)

  31. Ecklund E, Delcambre L, Freiling M (1996) Change cases: use cases that identify future requirements. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 31(10):342–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Larman C (2005) Applying UML and patterns. 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

  33. Lee K, Kang KC, Lee J (2002) Concepts and guidelines of feature modeling for product line software engineering. In: 7th international conference on software reuse. LNCS 2319. London, pp 62–77

  34. Guizzardi G, Gerd W, Guarino N, van Sinderen M (2004) An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. In: 16th international conference on advanced information system engineering (CAiSE), LNCS 3084. Riga, pp 112–126

  35. Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. The Kluwer international series in software engineering. Kluwer, Boston

  36. Ortiz F, Iborra A, Marín F, Álvarez B, Fernández-Meroño JM (2000) GOYA: a teleoperated system for blasting applied to ships maintenance. In: 3rd international conference on climbing and walking robots 2000. Madrid, pp 835–846

  37. Toval A, Olmos A, Piattini M (2002) Legal requirements reuse: a critical success factor for requirements quality and personal data protection. In: IEEE international joint conference on requirements engineering (ICRE 2002 and RE 2002). IEEE Computer Press, Essen, pp 9–13

  38. Toval A, Nicolás J, Moros B, García F (2002) Requirements reuse for improving information systems security: a practitioner’s approach. Requir Eng 6(4):205–219

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. PuLSE (2008) PuLSE (Product Line Software Engineering). http://www.iese.fraunhofer.de/Pulse/Bibliography/

  40. Baskerville RL, Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research. J Inf Tech 11:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Barkerville R (2001) Conducting Action Research: High Risk and High Reward in Theory and Practice. In: Trauth E (ed) Qualitative research in information systems. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 192–218

    Google Scholar 

  42. Estay C, Pastor J (2000) Improving action research in information systems with project management. In: 2000 Americas conference on information system 2000. Long Beach, pp 1558–1561

  43. Lam W, McDermid JA, Vickers AJ (1997) Ten steps towards systematic requirements reuse. Requir Eng 2(2):102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bayer J, Gerard S, Haugen O, Mansell J, Moller-Pedersen B, Oldevik J, Tessier P, Thibault J-P, Widen T (2006) Consolidated product line variability modeling. In: Käköla T, Dueñas JC (eds) Software product lines. Research issues in engineering and management. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–241

    Google Scholar 

  45. BigLever-Software (2008) GEARS—software product line engineering tool and framework. http://www.biglever.com/solution/product.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

Partially financed by the CICYT (Science and Technology Joint Committee), Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (TIN2006-15175-C05-02 and TIN2006-15175-C05-03). We would like to thank Prof. Alan M. Davis for his selfless help in the revision of the manuscript. Of course any remaining fault is ours.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Engineering Research Group, Departamento de Informática y Sistemas, Facultad de Informática, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30071, Murcia, Spain

    Joaquín Nicolás, Joaquín Lasheras & Ambrosio Toval

  2. Systems and Electronic Engineering Division, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, 30202, Cartagena, Spain

    Francisco J. Ortiz & Bárbara Álvarez

Authors
  1. Joaquín Nicolás
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joaquín Lasheras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ambrosio Toval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco J. Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bárbara Álvarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquín Nicolás.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nicolás, J., Lasheras, J., Toval, A. et al. An integrated domain analysis approach for teleoperated systems. Requirements Eng 14, 27–46 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0072-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0072-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation