Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering

  • Ivan J. JuretaEmail author
  • Stéphane Faulkner
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
Original Article


Representation and reasoning about goals of an information system unavoidably involve the transformation of unclear stakeholder requirements into an instance of a goal model. If the requirements engineer does not justify why one clear form of requirements is chosen over others, the subsequent modeling decisions cannot be justified either. If arguments for clarification and modeling decisions are instead explicit, justifiably appropriate instances of goal models can be constructed and additional analyses applied to discover richer sets of requirements. The paper proposes the “Goal Argumentation Method (GAM)” to fulfil three roles: (i) GAM guides argumentation and justification of modeling choices during the construction or critique of goal model instances; (ii) it enables the detection of deficient argumentation within goal model instances; and (iii) it provides practical techniques for the engineer to ensure that requirements appearing both in arguments and in model instance elements are clear.


Goal modeling Argumentation Clarification Goal-oriented requirements engineering 



The first author acknowledges funding from the Belgian ICM/CIM Doctoral Fellowship Program.


  1. 1.
    ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. ATLAS.ti—The Knowledge Workbench. Available online at
  2. 2.
    Bach K (1998) Ambiguity. In: Craig E (ed) Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker C (2006) Vagueness. In: Brown K (ed) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett B (1998) Modal semantics for knowledge dealing with Vague concepts. In: Proceedings of international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoningGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry D, Kamsties E (2005) The syntactically dangerous all and plural in specifications. IEEE Softw 22(1):55–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard P, Hunter A (2001) A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif Intell 128(1–2):203–235CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowen JP, Hinchey MG (1999) High-integrity system specification and design. Springer FACIT Series, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castro J, Kolp M, Mylopoulos J (2002) Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Info Sys 27(6):365–389CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavalli-Sforza V, Suthers DD (1994) Belvedere: an environment for practicing scientific argumentation. Worksh Comput DialecticsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chantree F, Nuseibeh B, de Roeck A, Willis A (2006) Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of international conference on requirement engineeringGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG, Loui RP (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surv 32(4):337–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CMSI (1992) CM/1 Product description. Corporate Memory Systems, Inc., 8920 Business Park Dr., Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conklin J, Begeman ML (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Info Syst 6(4):303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conklin J, Selvin A, Buckingham Shum S, Sierhuis M (2001) Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on hypertext and hypermediaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Curtis B, Krasner H, Iscoe N (1988) A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun ACM 31(11):1268–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20:3–50CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A (1996) Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSOFT symposium foundations of software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donzelli P (2004) A goal-driven and agent-based requirements engineering framework. Req Eng 9(1):16–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eurocontrol (1999) ATM user requirements document volume 1 and Volume 2. European Air Traffic Control Harmonisation and Integration Programme, Ref FCO.ET1.ST04.DEL01, European Organisation for the Safety of Air NavigationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: a lexical reference system and its application. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ford M, Billington D (2000) Strategies in human nonmonotonic reasoning. Comput Intell 16(3):446–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fuxman A, Liu L, Mylopoulos J, Pistore M, Roveri M, Traverso P (2004) Specifying and analyzing early requirements in Tropos. Req Eng 9(2):132–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gillon BS (1990) Ambiguity, generality, and indeterminacy: tests and definitions. Synthese 85:391–416CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graff D (2000) Shifting sands: an interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philos Top 20:45–81Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Halpern JY (2004) Intransitivity and vagueness. In: Proceedings of international conference on princip of knowledge representation and reasoningGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hitchcock D (2007) The concept of argument, and informal logic. In: Gabbay D, Thagard P, Woods J (eds) Philosophy of logic, handbook of the philosophy of science 5. Elsevier, Dordrecht (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hospers J (1953) An introduction to philosophical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaci S, van der Torre L (2007) Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. Int J Approx Reason (in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kamsties E, Berry D, Peach B (2001) Detecting ambiguities in requirements documents using inspections. In: Proceedings workshop inspection in software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Info Syst 26:259–277CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kavakli P, Loucopoulos P (2005) Goal modeling in requirements engineering: analysis and critique of current methods. In: Krogstie J, Halpin T, Siau K (eds) Information modeling methods and methodologies (Advanced Topics of Database Research). IDEA GroupGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kennedy C (2007) Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguist Philos (in press)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee J (1991) Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale. In: Proceedings of international conference on software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee J, Lai K-Y (1991) What’s in the design rationale? Hum Comput Interact 6(3–4):251–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Letier E (2001) Reasoning about agents in goal-oriented requirements engineering. PhD Thesis, Département d’ingénierie informatique, Université catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Letier E, van Lamsweerde A (2004) Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. ACM Sigsoft Softw Eng Notes 29(6):53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu XF, Yen J (1996) An analytic framework for specifying and analyzing imprecise requirements. In: Proceedings of international conference on software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu L, Yu E (2004) Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modeling approach. Info Syst 29:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Louridas P, Loucopoulos P (2000) A generic model for reflective design. ACM Trans Softw Eng Meth 9(2):199–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maclean A, Young RM, Belotti VME, Moran TP (1991) Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Hum Comput Interact 6(3–4):201–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    March JG (1978) Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J Econ 9(2):587–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Margalit A (1983) A Review of Scheffler (1979). J Philos 80:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B (1992) Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(6):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pohl K (1993) The three dimensions of requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of international conference of advanced infomation system engineeringGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenther F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 219–318Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramesh B, Dhar V (1992) Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(6):498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ravin Y, Leacock C (eds) (2000) Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Richman RJ (1959) Ambiguity and Intuition. Mind, New Series 68 269:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shum BS, Hammond N (1994) Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? Int J Hum Comput Stud 40(4):603–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simari GR, Loui RP (1992) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif Intell 53:125–157CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smolensky P, Fox B, King R, Lewis C (1987) Computer-aided reasoned discourse, or how to argue with a computer. In: Guindon R (ed) Cognitive science and its applications for human computer interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 109–162Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sorensen R (2003) Vagueness. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Toulmin S (1958) The uses of arguments. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of interantional conference on requirement engineeringGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet Ph (1992) The Meeting Scheduler Problem: Preliminary Definition. Département d’ingénierie informatique, Université catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Williamson T (1994) Vagueness. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yu E (1994) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD Thesis, (also Tech. Report DKBS-TR-94-6) Dept. of Computer Science, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yu E (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of international symposium on requirement engineeringGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zave P, Jackson M (1997) Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans Softw Eng Meth 6(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 1
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Management Research Unit (IMRU)University of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Institut d’InformatiqueUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations