R.J. Hall, "Feature Combination and Interaction Detection via Foreground/Background Models", Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems V, K. Kimbler and L.G. Bouma, eds., pp. 232-246, IOS Press, 1998.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... an interaction occurs when the behaviour of one feature is affected by the behaviour of another feature or another instance of the same feature [Kimbler95] Several taxonomies have been produced in order to try and classify different types of interaction (including [Cameron94] Kimbler95] and [Hall98]) A simple, yet we believe helpful, distinction from [Kimbler95] is between: interactions that occur because the requirements of multiple features are not compatible, and . interactions that occur when a feature behaves differently in the presence of other features. Within the ....

Hall R.J., "Feature Combination and Interaction Detection via Foreground/ Background Models", In [Kimbler98], pp 232-246, 1998.

....In these conditions, interaction analysis based on human expertise is becoming too complex and less feasible. Methods based on formal approach proved to be beneficial to tackle this problem, since they generally allow to automate, at least partially, the detection process (see for instance [20]) Among the formalisms used in this context, one can name models based on finite state machines [5; 4] or models based on communicating concurrent processes [22; 8; 16] However, no approach has succeeded in defining formally and properly the notion of interaction. Consequently, the detection ....

R.J. Hall. Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground/background models. In K. Kimbler and L.G. Bouma, editors, Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems V, pages 232--246. IOS Press, 1998.

....task, whether an implementation is automatically derived from it or not. In either case, the validation of this model allows to ensure that the specification is non ambiguous and consistent. At the same time, it suppresses conception errors and reduces the complexity of the implementation task [11,8]. Our work is original by the following aspects: It distinguishes the features from the basic system and defines clearly their relation, thanks to two dedicated operations: composition of features and integration of a feature to the basic system. It provides a homogeneous way to handle ....

....as an obstacle to the evolution of such a model. Our work shares some analogies with those of Plath and Ryan [14,15] which propose a general approach to construct in the most independent manner each feature, in order to ease afterwards their composition. The definition 1 For instance, Hall [8] proposed to describe a feature by rewriting and modifying the whole basic service. Because of the numerous so called spurious interactions revealed by his method, he came to the conclusion that the definition of a feature shall be restricted to the minimal modifications that it induces on the ....

R.J. Hall. Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground /background models. In Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems V, pages 232--246. IOS Press, 1998.

....executed by, any of the requirement scenarios. This helps the designer elicit adequate requirements from the requirer. ffl Layered theorem proving[12, 20] is a technique for proving arbitrary correctness properties, such as state invariants and pseudo state diagrams[12] ffl Conflict detection[14] returns predicates describing states in which the model, if it reaches them, will derive an inconsistent next state (potentially causing either a crash of the simulator or, worse, the implemented system) Inconsistencies can result from setting state relations to two inconsistent values or ....

....Service (POTS) plus 12 functional features such as Call Forwarding (CF) Terminating Call Screening (TCS) FreePhone Routing (FPR) and nine others. This SGEN 2 case study was performed before four of the twelve were modeled, so only POTS and eight features are included here. In a related paper[14], I explain how I used the ISAT tool set to model these specs and to detect various types of feature interactions among them, many of which are predicates describing states in which undesired things may happen, such as feature inconsistencies becoming manifest (conflicts) or feature correctness ....

R.J. Hall; Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground/background models; to appear in Proc. 1998 Intl. Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems, IOS Press.

No context found.

R.J. Hall, "Feature Combination and Interaction Detection via Foreground/Background Models", Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems V, K. Kimbler and L.G. Bouma, eds., pp. 232-246, IOS Press, 1998.

No context found.

Robert J. Hall. Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground/background models. Comp. Networks 32(4), 449-469 (April 2000). 16

No context found.

Hall, R. Feature Combination and Interaction Detection via Foreground/background Models. In: Kimbler, K. Bouma, W. (eds.) Proc. 5th Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems. IOS Press, 1998.

No context found.

Robert J.Hall. Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground /background models. Computer Networks, 32:449--469, 2000. Also available as: ftp://ftp.research.att.com/dist/hall/papers/isat/ feature-interactions-c%omnet00.ps.

No context found.

Robert J. Hall. Feature combination and interaction detection via foreground/background models. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems, to appear.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC