, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 119–132 | Cite as


  • Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado LeiteEmail author
  • Claudia Cappelli


Softwaretransparenz stellt eine neuartige und bedeutende Anforderung dar, mit der sich Softwareentwickler auseinandersetzen müssen. Der Beitrag liefert erste Untersuchungsergebnisse zur Problematik der Softwaretransparenz. Zur Definition des Transparenzbegriffs und zur Erfassung der Semantik von Softwaretransparenz wird ein SIG (Softgoal Interdependence Graph) genutzt, der in drei Versionen weiterentwickelt wurde. Anhand von drei Beispielsituationen wird die Anwendung des Transparenz-SIG demonstriert.


Software Transparenz Informationstransparenz Open Society Requirements Engineering 

Software Transparency


Software transparency is a new and important concern that software developers must deal with. As society moves towards increased automation, if citizens wish to exercise their right to know, the transparency of public services and processes acquires fundamental importance. Informed discourse is only possible if processes affecting the public are open to evaluation. Achieving software transparency to this level of openness faces several roadblocks. The paper reports on initial findings on exploring the obstacles for enabling software transparency.


Software Transparency Information transparency Open society Requirements engineering 



Die Autoren danken den Herausgebern und Gutachtern. Ihre positive Kritik und ihre Unterstützung bei der Formulierung unserer Ideen waren Grundlage für die Verbesserung des Beitrags. Finanzielle Unterstützung für diese Arbeit wurde von Faperj und CNPq zur Verfügung gestellt.


  1. Biolchini J, Mian PG, Natali AC, Travassos GH (2005) Systematic review in software engineering: relevance and utility. Technical report ES67905, PESC – COPPE/UFRJ, 2005.
  2. Bishop M, Wagner D (2007) Risks of e-voting. Communications of the ACM 50(11):120–120. doi: 10.1145/1297797.1297827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breitman K, Leite JCSP (2003) Ontology as a requirements engineering product. In: 11th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering. IEEE Comp Soc Press, Los Alamitos, S 309–319 Google Scholar
  4. Camp LJ (2006) Varieties of software and their implications for effective democratic government. In: Proceedings of the British academy, Bd 135, S 183–185 Google Scholar
  5. Cappelli C (2009) An approach for business processes transparency using aspects. Dissertation, Departamento de Informática, PUC-Rio, Ago (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  6. Cappelli C, Oliveira AP, Leite JCSP (2007) Exploring business process transparency concepts. IEEE Comp Soc Press, Los Alamitos, S 389–390 Google Scholar
  7. Cappelli C, Cunha H, Gonzalez-Baixauli B, Leite JCSP (2010) 25th transparency versus security: early analysis of antagonistic requirements. In: ACM symposium on applied computing, requirements engineering track. Sierre (accepted) Google Scholar
  8. Castro J, Kolp M, Liu L, Perini A (2009) Dealing with complexity using conceptual models based on tropos. In: Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications. Springer, Berlin, S 335–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung L, Nixon B, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer, Norwell Google Scholar
  10. Chung L, Leite JCSP (2009) On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida A, Chaudhri V, Giorgini P, Yu E (Hrsg) Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications. Springer, Heidelberg, S 363–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cysneiros LM, Yu E, Leite JCSP (2003) Cataloguing non-functional requirements as softgoal networks. In: Proc of requirements engineering for adaptable architectures. 11th international requirements engineering conference, S 13–20 Google Scholar
  12. Egyed A, Grünbacher P (2002) Automating requirements traceability: beyond the record & replay paradigm. In: Proc 17th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE Comp Soc, Washington, S 163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (1995) Directive 95/46/EC of the European parliament – data protection.
  14. Fernandes L, Leite JCSP, Breitman K (2005) C&L uma ferramenta de apoio à engenharia de requisitos. Revista de Informática Teórica e Aplicada 12(1):23–45 Google Scholar
  15. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2007) Full disclosure, the perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Nicchiarelli E, Sebastián R (2002) Reasoning with goal models. In: Proc ER 2002. 21st international conference on conceptual modeling. Springer, Berlin, S 167–181 Google Scholar
  17. Hendler J, Shadbolt N, Hall W, Berners-Lee T, Weitzner D (2008) Web science: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the web. Communication of the ACM 51(7):60–69. doi: 10.1145/1364782.1364798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henriques A (2006) Corporate truth the limits to transparency. Earthscan, London Google Scholar
  19. Holzner B, Holzner L (2006) Transparency in global change: the vanguard of the open society. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  20. IOCCC (2009) International Obfuscated C Code Contest.
  21. Jackson D, Thomas M, Millett L (2007) Software for dependable systems: sufficient evidence? The National Academies Press.
  22. Jarke M, Loucopoulos P, Lyytinen K, Mylopoulos J, Robinson W (2009) Manifesto – high-impact requirements for software-intensive systems In: Dagstuhl seminar proceedings – 08412, 1862–4405.
  23. Kramer J (2007) Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM 50(4):36–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamsweerde A van (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  25. Leite JCSP, Cappelli C (2008) Exploring. i* characteristics that support software transparency In: Proc 3rd international i* workshop, CEUR workshop proceedings Bd 322, S 51–54
  26. Leite JCSP, Rossi G, Balaguer F, Maiorana Kaplan G V, Hadad G, Oliveros A (1997) Enhancing a requirements baseline with scenarios. Requirements Engineering 2(4):184–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leite JCSP, Yu Y, Liu L, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2005) Quality-based software reuse. In: CAiSE, S 535–550 Google Scholar
  28. Lord KM (2006) The perils and promise of global transparency. State University of New York Press, New York Google Scholar
  29. Meunier P (2008) Software transparency and purity. Communications of the ACM 51(2):104. doi: 10.1145/1314215.1314232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B (1992) Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(6):483–497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paul N, Tanenbaum AS (2009) Trustworthy voting: from machine to system. Computer 42(5):23–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Republic Brasilien (1997) Lei N° 9.507, de 12 de Novembro de 1997.
  33. Robinson WN, Pawlowski SD, Volkov V (2003) Requirements interaction management. ACM Computing Surveys 35(2):132–190. doi: 10.1145/857076.857079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rolland C, Salinesi C (2009) Supporting requirements elicitation through goal/scenario coupling. In: Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications. Springer, Berlin, S 398–416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  36. Stallman R (1999) The GNU Manifesto. Originally written in 1984; later version available. In: DeBona C, Ockman S, Stone M (Hrsg) Open codes: voices from the open code revolution. O’Reilly, Cambridge, S 53–70. Google Scholar
  37. Stallman R (2009) Why ‘Open Source’ misses the point of free software. Communications of the ACM 52(6):31–33. doi: 10.1145/1516046.1516058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Department of Justice (oJ) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
  39. US Government Printing Office (2002) Public law 107–204 – Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
  40. Weber RH (2008) Transparency and the governance of the internet. Computer Law & Security Report 24(4):342–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weitzner DJ, Abelson H, Berners-Lee T, Feigenbaum J, Hendler J, Sussman GJ (2008) Information accountability. Communications of the ACM 51(6):82–87. doi: 10.1145/1349026.1349043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wikipedia (2009) Transparency (social).
  43. Yu E (1994) Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Dissertation, University of Toronto, Graduate Department of Computer Science, S 124 ff Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia Cappelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Informática PontifíciaUniversidade Católica do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrasilien
  2. 2.Departamento de Informática AplicadaUniversidade Federal do Estado do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrasilien

Personalised recommendations