Automated Software Engineering

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 311–342 | Cite as

Integrating specifications: A similarity reasoning approach

  • George Spanoudakis
  • Panos Constantopoulos
Article

Abstract

Requirements analysis usually results in a set of different specifications for the same system, which must be integrated. Integration involves the detection and elimination of discrepancies between them. Discrepancies may be due to differences in representation models, modeling perspectives or practices. As instances of the semantic heterogeneity problem (Gangopadhyay and Barsalou, 1991), discrepancies are broader than logical inconsistencies, and therefore not always detectable using theorem proving. This paper proposes an approach to their detection using meta-modeling and similarity analysis. Specification components are classified under a meta-model of domain independent semantic modeling abstractions and thereby compared according to a newly developed model of similarity. Similarity analysis results in an isomorphic mapping between them, which can be used as a basis for reconciling and merging them. The approach is extensible in the sense that it accommodates different models for representing specifications, and analysis scales up to manage large, complex specification because the complexity of similarity analysis is polynomial.

Keywords

requirement analysis viewpoints similarity reasoning semantic heterogeneity inconsistency management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Fedaghi, S. and Scheuermann, P. 1981. Mapping considerations in the design of schemas for the relational model.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 7(1).Google Scholar
  2. Arens, Y. and Knoblock, C. 1992. Planning and reformulating queries for semantically-modeled multidatabase systems. InProceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.Google Scholar
  3. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., and Navathe, S. 1986. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration.ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4).Google Scholar
  4. Bright, M., Hurson, A., and Pakzad, S. 1994. Automated resolution of semantic heterogeneity in multidatabases.ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 19(2).Google Scholar
  5. Casanova, M. and Vidal, M. 1983. Towards a sound view integration methodology. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGART/SIGMOD Conference on Principles of Database Systems, ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Codd, F. 1979. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning.ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 4(4).Google Scholar
  7. Collet, C. et al. 1991. Resource integration using a large knowledge base in carnot.IEEE Computer, 24(12).Google Scholar
  8. Constantopoulos, P. et al. 1993. Repositories for software reuse: The software information base. InProceedings of the IFIP Conference on the Software Development Process, Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. Constantopoulos, P. and Doerr, M. 1993. The semantic index system: A brief presentation. Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  10. Easterbrook, S. and Nuseibeh, B. 1995. Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, York, England.Google Scholar
  11. Falkenhainer, B. et al. 1990. The structure mapping engine: Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence, 41.Google Scholar
  12. Finkelstein, A. et al. 1994. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(8).Google Scholar
  13. Furnas, G. et al. 1987. The vocabulary problem in human-system communication.Communications of the ACM, 30(11).Google Scholar
  14. Gangopadhyay, D. and Barsalou, T. 1991. On the semantic equivalence of heterogeneous populations in multi-model.Multidatabase Systems, SIGMOD Record 20(4).Google Scholar
  15. Goh, C., Madnick, S., and Siegel, M. 1994. Context interchange: Overcoming the challenges of large-scale interoperable database systems in a dynamic environment. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Gaithersurg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Gruber, T. and Olsen, G. 1994. An ontology for engineering mathematics. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Heitmeyer, C. et al. 1995. Consistency checking of SCR-style requirements specifications. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, York, England.Google Scholar
  18. Hull, R. and King, R. 1987. Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications and research issues.ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3).Google Scholar
  19. Johanneson, P. 1993. Schema transformations as an aid in view integration. InProceedings of CAiSE'93, LNCS 685.Google Scholar
  20. Kotonya, G. and Sommerville, I. 1992. Viewpoints for requirements definition.Software Engineering Journal, 7(6).Google Scholar
  21. Larson, J., Navathe, S., and Elmasri, R. 1989. A theory of attribute equivalence in databases with application to schema integration.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(4).Google Scholar
  22. Leite, J. and Freeman, P. 1991. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(12).Google Scholar
  23. Lenat, D. and Guha, R. 1990.Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Litwin, W. and Abdellatif, A. 1987. An overview of the multi-database manipulation language MDSL. InProceedings of the IEEE, 75(4).Google Scholar
  25. Maiden, N. and Sutcliffe, A. 1994. Requirements critiquing using domain abstractions. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. Maiden, N. et al. 1994. Distributed requirements engineering within NATURE, ESPRIT BRA NATURE, Nature Report Series.Google Scholar
  27. Maiden, N. et al. 1995. Computational mechanisms for distributed requirements engineering. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'95), USA.Google Scholar
  28. Mannino, M. and Effelsberg, W. 1984. Matching techniques in global schema design. InProceedings of the IEEE COMPDEC Conference, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  29. Meyers, S. and Reiss, S. 1991. A system for multiparadigm development of software systems. InProceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-6), Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  30. Monarchi, D. and Puhr, G. 1992. A research typology for object oriented analysis and design.Communications of the ACM, 35(9).Google Scholar
  31. Motro, A. and Buneman, P. 1981. Constructing superviews. InProceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data, ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Motschnig-Pitrik, P. 1993. The semantics of parts vs. aggregates in data knowledge modeling. InProceedings of CAiSE'93, LNCS 685, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  33. Mylopoulos, J. et al. 1990. Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(4).Google Scholar
  34. Navathe, S. and Gadgil, S. 1982. A methodology for view integration in logical data base design. InProceedings of the 8th International Conferences on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB Endowment, Saratoga, California.Google Scholar
  35. Nuseibeh, B. et al. 1993. Expressing the relationship between multiple views in requirements specification. InProceedings of 15th International Conference on Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  36. Papadimitriou, C. and Steiglitz, K. 1982.Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Peckham, J. and Maryanski, F. 1988. Semantic data models.ACM Computing Surveys, 20(3).Google Scholar
  38. Robinson, W. and Fickas, S. 1994. Supporting multi-perspective requirements engineering. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering.Google Scholar
  39. Sciore, E., Siegel, M., and Rosenthal, A. 1994. Using semantic values to facilitate the interoperability among heterogeneous information systems.ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 19(2).Google Scholar
  40. Sheth, A. and Larson, J. 1990. Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous and autonomous databases.ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3).Google Scholar
  41. Smith, E. 1989.Concepts and Induction, Foundations of Cognitive Science, A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spanoudakis, G. and Constantopoulos, P. 1994a. Similarity for analogical software reuse: A computational model. InProceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  43. Spanoudakis, G. and Constantopoulos, P. 1994b. On evidential feature salience. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Database & Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'94), Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  44. Spanoudakis, G. 1994a. Analogical similarity of objects: A conceptual modeling approach, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Crete, Heraklion, (available from http://web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/gespan/info.html).Google Scholar
  45. Spanoudakis, G. 1994b. Similarity analyser: An implementation overview. Working Paper 12, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, (available from http://web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/gespan/info.html).Google Scholar
  46. Storey, V. 1993. Understanding semantic relations.VLDB Journal 3.Google Scholar
  47. Turner, M. 1988.Categories and Analogies, Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Philosophy. D.H. Helman (Ed.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.Google Scholar
  48. Yao, S., Waddle, V., and Bousel, B. 1982. View modeling and integration using the functional data model.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 8(6).Google Scholar
  49. Zave, P. and Jackson, M. 1993. Conjunction as composition.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2(4).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Spanoudakis
    • 1
  • Panos Constantopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCity UniversityUK
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFoundation for Research and Technology-HellasGreece

Personalised recommendations