Science China Information Sciences

, Volume 57, Issue 7, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Implementation decision making for internetware driven by quality requirements

  • Bo Wei
  • Zhi Jin
  • Didar Zowghi
  • Bin Yin
Research Paper


Internetware is an emerging software paradigm in the open, dynamic and ever-changing Internet environment. A successful internetware must demonstrate acceptable degree of quality when carrying out its functionality. Hence, when internetware is being dynamically constructed, making implementation decisions to satisfice the quality requirements becomes a critical issue. In the traditional software engineering, quality requirements are usually refined stepwise by sub-requirements utilizing goal modeling perspective, until some potential functional design alternatives are identified. The goal-oriented paradigms have adopted graphical goal models to reason about quality requirements and proposed qualitative or quantitative reasoning schemas. However, these techniques may become unviable due to the ever-changing operating environment and demands for run-time decision making. In this paper, we propose an approach for implementation decision making driven by quality requirements for internetware. It focuses on the symbolic formula representation of requirements goal models with the tree structure, which is of well-defined syntax and clear traceability. Furthermore, we explore some reasoning rules which effectively automate each reasoning action on the formulae. This supports multiple-factor decision making. A case study is also provided to illustrate our proposed approach. We have developed a supporting tool based on our theoretical approach that we also present in this paper.


design alternatives decision making implementation decision internetware quality requirements 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11432_2014_5117_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (145 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 144 KB.


  1. 1.
    Mei H. Internetware: challenges and future direction of software paradigm for internet as a computer. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, Seoul, 2010. 14–16Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ma W, Liu L, Ye X, et al. Requirements-driven internetware services evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 1st Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, New York, 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simon H A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev, 1956, 63: 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amyot D, Ghanavati S, Horkoff J, et al. Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int J Intell Syst, 2010, 25: 841–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Lamsweerde A. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, 2001. 249–262Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B. Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng, 1992, 18: 483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Sebastiani R. Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the tropos methodology. Eng Appl Artif Intel, 2005, 18: 159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu E S K. Towards modeling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Annapolis, 1997. 226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weiss M, Amyot D. Business process modeling with URN. Int J E-Bus Res, 2005, 1: 63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung L, Nixon B A. Dealing with non-functional requirements: three experimental studies of a process-oriented approach. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, Seattle, 1995. 24–28Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung L, Nixon B A, Yu E, et al. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Berlin: Springer, 2000CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horkoff J, Yu E. Finding solutions in goal models: an iterative backward reasoning approach. In: Proceedings of the 29th International conference on Conceptual modeling, Berlin: Springer, 2010. 59–75Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horkoff J, Yu E, Liu L. Analyzing trust in technology strategies. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, New York, 2006. 21–32Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mei H, Huang G, Zhao H, et al. A software architecture centric engineering approach for internetware. Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2006, 49: 702–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wei B, Jin Z, Zowghi D. An automatic reasoning mechanism for nfr goal models. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, Xi’an, 2011. 52–59Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Letier E. Managing con icts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng, 1998. 24: 908–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wei B, Jin Z. Characterizing the implementation of software non-functional requirements from probabilistic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Signature Conference on Computer Software and Applications, Munich, 2011. 608–609Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mei H, Liu X. Internetware: an emerging software paradigm for internet computing. J Comput Sci Technol, 2011, 26: 588–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jureta I J, Faulkner S, Thiran P. Dynamic requirements specification for adaptable and open service-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of ICSOC, Berlin: Springer, 2007. 270–282Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jureta I J, Faulkner S, Schobbens P Y. A more expressive softgoal conceptualization for quality requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Springer: Berlin, 2006. 281–295Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elahi G, Yu E. A semi-automated decision support tool for requirements trade-off analysis. In: Proceedings of COMPSAC, 2011. 466–475Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elahi G, Yu E. Comparing alternatives for analyzing requirements trade-offs-in the absence of numerical data. Inform Software Tech, 2012, 54: 517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wei B, Jin Z, Liu L. A formalism for extending the NFR Framework to support the composition of the goal trees. In: Proceedings of the 17th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Sydney, 2010. 23–32Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiter R. On Closed World Data Bases. Logic and Data Bases. US: Springer, 1978. 55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Nicchiarelli E, et al. Formal Reasoning Techniques for Goal Models. Journal of Data Semantics, Berlin: Springer, 2003. 1–20Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heaven W, Letier E. Simulating and optimising design decisions in quantitative goal models. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, 2011. 79–88Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Supakkul S, Hill T, Chung L, et al. An NFR pattern approach to dealing with NFRs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Sydney, 2010. 179–188Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wei B, Yin B, Jin Z, et al. rΣ: Automated reasoning tool for non-functional requirement goal models. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, 2011. 337–338Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chung L, do Prado Leite J C S. On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Nicchiarelli E, et al. Reasoning with Goal Models. Conceptual ModelingER 2002. Berlin: Springer, 2003. 167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oliveira A P A, Cysneiros L M, do Prado Leite J C S, et al. Integrating scenarios, i*, and aspects in the context of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the Center For Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON, 2006. 204–218Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuxman A, Liu L, Mylopoulos J, et al. Specifying and analyzing early requirements in tropos. Requir Eng, 2004, 9: 132–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu E, Mylopoulos J. Enterprise modeling for business redesign: the i* framework. SIGGROUP Bull, 1997, 18: 59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Letier E, Van Lamsweerde A. Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, New York, 2004. 53–62Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Lamsweerde A. Reasoning About Alternative Requirements Options. Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 380–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Lamsweerde A. Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verlaine B, Dubois Y, Jureta I J, et al. Towards conceptual foundations for service-oriented requirements engineering: bridging requirements and services ontologies. IET Softw, 2012, 6: 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academy of Mathematics and Systems ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Lab. of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of EducationPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering and IT.University of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations