Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 27–64 | Cite as

The analysis and management of non-canonical requirement specifications through a belief integration game

  • Ebrahim Bagheri
  • Ali A. Ghorbani
Regular Paper

Abstract

Non-canonical requirement specifications refer to a set of software requirements that is either inconsistent, vague or incomplete. In this paper, we provide a correspondence between requirement specifications and annotated propositional belief bases. Through this analogy, we are able to analyze the contents of a given set of requirement collections known as viewpoints and specify whether they are incomplete, incoherent, or inconsistent under a closed-world reasoning assumption. Based on the requirement collections’ properties introduced in this paper, we define a viewpoint integration game through which the inconsistencies of non-canonical requirement specifications are resolved. The game consists of several rounds of negotiation and is performed by two main functions, namely choice and enhancement functions. The outcome of this game is a set of inconsistency-free requirement collections that can be integrated to form a unique fair representative of the given requirement collections.

Keywords

Software requirements Inconsistency resolution Subjective logic Belief merge and revision 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amon B, Ekenberg L, Johannesson P, Munguanaze M, Njabili U, Tesha RM (2003) From first-order logic to automated word generation for lyee. Knowl Based Syst 16(7–8): 413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade J, Ares J, Garcia R, Pazos J, Rodriguez S, Silva A (2004) A methodological framework for viewpoint-oriented conceptual modeling. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5): 282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas M, Bertossi LE, Kifer M (2000) Applications of annotated predicate calculus to querying inconsistent databases. In: Computational Logic’00, pp 926–941Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2007a) A framework for distributed collaborative conceptual model development. In: OOPSLA Companion, pp 785–786Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2007b) On the collaborative development of para-consistent conceptual models. In: Seventh international conference on quality software, 2007. QSIC ’07, pp 336–341Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2008) A belief-theoretic framework for the collaborative development and integration of para-consistent conceptual models. J Syst Softw (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2008a) Experiences on the belief-theoretic integration of para-consistent conceptual models. In: Australian software engineering conference, pp 357–366Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2008b) Towards a belief-theoretic model for collaborative conceptual model development. In: The fourty-first Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’08) IEEEGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balzer R (1991) Tolerating inconsistency, In: ICSE ’91: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp 158–165Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barr M, Wells C (1990) Category theory for computing science. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belnap ND (1977) A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn J, Epstein G(eds) Modern uses of multiple-valued logics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 8–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boehm B, In H (1996) Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Softw 13(2): 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Booth R (2006) Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf Fusion 7(1): 19–34Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cadoli M, Donini FM (1997) survey on knowledge compilation. AI Commun 10(3–4): 137–150Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20(1–2): 3–50zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Darke P, Shanks G (1996) Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: a framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches. Requir Eng V1(2): 88–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubois D, Lang J, Prade H (1994) Possibilistic logic, pp 439–513Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Easterbrook S (1991) Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl Acquis 3(3): 255–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Easterbrook S (1994) Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. Requirements engineering: social and technical issues, pp 41–65Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2001) A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: ICSE ’01: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 411–420Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiadeiro JL, Maibaum T (1995) Interconnecting formalisms: supporting modularity, reuse and incrementality. In: SIGSOFT ’95: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering. ACM Press, New York, pp 72–80Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1994) Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(8): 569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M (1992) Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 2(1): 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gabbay DM, Hunter A (1991) Making inconsistency respectable: a logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning. In: FAIR ’91: Proceedings of the international workshop on fundamentals of artificial intelligence research. Springer, London, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gervasi V, Zowghi D (2005) Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 14(3): 277–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghose A, Lin Q (2006) Viewpoints merging via incrementally elicited ranked structures. In: QSIC, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldin L, Berry DM (1997) Abstfinder, a prototype natural language text abstraction finder for use in requirements elicitation. Autom Softw Eng 4(4): 375–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ide N, Vronis J (1998) Word sense disambiguation: the state of the art. Comput Linguist 24: 1–40Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jøsang A (2001) A logic for uncertain probabilities. Int J Uncertain Fuzzy Knowl Syst 9(3): 279–212Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Josang A, Daniel M, Vannoorenberghe P (2003) Strategies for combining conflicting dogmatic beliefs. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference of information fusion, pp 1133–1140Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaiya H, Horai H, Saeki M (2002) Agora: attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: Requirement engineering conference, p 13Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Konieczny S (2004) Belief base merging as a game. J Appl Non-Classical Logics 14(3): 275–294zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kotis K, Vouros A (2006) Human-centered ontology engineering: the hcome methodology. Knowl Inf Syst 10(1): 109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee L, Ling W (2003) A methodology for structural conflict resolution in the integration of entity-relationship schemas. Knowl Inf Syst 5(2): 225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lehtola L, Kauppinen M, Kujala S (2004) Requirements prioritization challenges in practice. In: PROFES, pp 497–508Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leite JCSP, Freeman PA (1991) Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 17(12): 1253–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    List C, Goodin RE (2001) Epistemic democracy: generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. J Polit Philos 9(3):277–306. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9760.00128 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu W (2006) Measuring conflict between possibilistic uncertain information through belief function theory. In: KSEM, pp 265–277Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu W, Qi G, Bell DA (2006) Adaptive merging of prioritized knowledge bases. Fundam Inform 73(3): 389–407zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Luisa M, Mariangela F, Pierluigi I (2004) Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. Requir Eng 9(1): 40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mu K, Jin Z, Lu R, Peng Y (2007) Handling non-canonical software requirements based on annotated predicate calculus. Knowl Inf Syst 11(1): 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mu K, Liu W, Jin Z, Lu R, Yue A, Bell DA (2007) A merging-based approach to handling inconsistency in locally prioritized software requirements. In: KSEM, pp 103–114Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mylopoulos J, Borgida A, Jarke M, Koubarakis M (1990) Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 8(4): 325–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nasukawa T, Yi J (2003) Sentiment analysis: capturing favorability using natural language processing. In: K-CAP ’03: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge capture. ACM, New York, pp 70–77Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nuseibeh B, Kramer J, Finkelstein A (1994) A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(10): 760–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Qi G, Liu W, Bell D (2007) Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158(23): 2535–2551zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Qi G, Liu W, Bell DA (2005) Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized belief bases. In: IJCAI, pp 552–557Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robinson WN, Pawlowski SD (1999) Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(6): 816–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ryan K, Karlsson J (1997) Prioritizing software requirements in an industrial setting. In: ICSE ’97: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on software engineering. ACM, New York, pp 564–565Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sabetzadeh M, Easterbrook S (2006) View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir Eng 11(3): 174–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sommerville I, Rodden T, Sawyer P, Bentley R, Twidale M, (1993) Integrating ethnography into the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 165–173Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann Softw Eng V3(0): 101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Spanoudakis G, Constantopoulos P (1995) Integrating specifications: a similarity reasoning approach. Autom Softw Eng V2(4): 311–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Spanoudakis G, Finkelstein A (1997) Reconciling requirements: a method for managing interference, inconsistency and conflict. Ann Softw Eng 3(0):433–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023\%2FA\%3A1018998207415
  55. 55.
    Spanoudakis G, Finkelstein A, Till D (1999) Overlaps in requirements engineering. Autom Softw Eng 6(2): 171–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spanoudakis G, Zisman A (2001) Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. Handbook of software engineering and knowledge engineering, vol 1Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tsai J, Weigert T, Jang H-C (1992) A hybrid knowledge representation as a basis of requirement specification and specification analysis. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(12): 1076–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 249–262Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Letier E (1998) Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(11): 908–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yager RR (1987) On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41(2): 93–137zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zafarani R, Jashki M-A, Baghi H, Ghorbani AA (2008) A novel approach for social behavior analysis of the blogosphere. In: Canadian conference on AI, pp 356–367Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zave P, Jackson M (1997) Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(1): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhu X, Jin Z (2005) Ontology-based inconsistency management of software requirements specifications. In: SOFSEM, pp 340–349Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zuckerman M, Kernis MH, Guarnera SM, Murphy JF, Rappoport L (1983) The egocentric bias: seeing oneself as cause and target of others behavior. J Pers 51(4): 621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations