As many self-adaptive, smart and pervasive systems use context information to change their behavior based on varying context conditions, context variability is emerging as a technique for modeling context and non-context features that may realize their variability dynamically. Hartmann and Trew [17] highlight the role of context features that can be entangled with conventional feature models and use them as classifiers to delimit the scope of system options (e.g., the software of a car that defines the “region” as a context feature to incorporate different cars’ options according to that region). Context and non-context features can be modeled separately or under a common feature model, such as the two strategies suggested in [5]. The former strategy models two feature models separately, which introduces a bigger number of
dependencies between the context model and the feature model
representing the system’s options, but promotes the reusability
and replacement for different contexts. The second strategy
merges both feature models which requires more modeling effort
to overlap context and non-context features into one, but reduces
the number of links between both types of features. However, this
strategy is more appropriate for systems that don’t need to replace
contexts frequently. Context analysis and context variability
modeling [1] offer a good choice as key mechanisms that extend
the typical feature modeling activity and become quite suitable for
collaborative cyber-physical systems that use context data from
physical sensors.
As many self-adaptive, smart and pervasive systems use context information to change their behavior based on varying context conditions, context variability is emerging as a technique for modeling context and non-context features that may realize their variability dynamically. Hartmann and Trew [17] highlight the role of context features that can be entangled with conventional feature models and use them as classifiers to delimit the scope of system options (e.g., the software of a car that defines the “region” as a context feature to incorporate different cars’ options according to that region). Context and non-context features can be modeled separately or under a common feature model, such as the two strategies suggested in [5]. The former strategy models two feature models separately, which introduces a bigger number ofdependencies between the context model and the feature modelrepresenting the system’s options, but promotes the reusabilityand replacement for different contexts. The second strategymerges both feature models which requires more modeling effortto overlap context and non-context features into one, but reducesthe number of links between both types of features. However, thisstrategy is more appropriate for systems that don’t need to replacecontexts frequently. Context analysis and context variabilitymodeling [1] offer a good choice as key mechanisms that extendthe typical feature modeling activity and become quite suitable forcollaborative cyber-physical systems that use context data fromphysical sensors.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
