Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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): 413–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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): 282–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arenas M, Bertossi LE, Kifer M (2000) Applications of annotated predicate calculus to querying inconsistent databases. In: Computational Logic’00, pp 926–941

  4. Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2007a) A framework for distributed collaborative conceptual model development. In: OOPSLA Companion, pp 785–786

  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 336–341

  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)

  7. Bagheri E, Ghorbani AA (2008a) Experiences on the belief-theoretic integration of para-consistent conceptual models. In: Australian software engineering conference, pp 357–366

  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) IEEE

  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 158–165

  10. Barr M, Wells C (1990) Category theory for computing science. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Belnap ND (1977) A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn J, Epstein G(eds) Modern uses of multiple-valued logics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 8–37

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boehm B, In H (1996) Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Softw 13(2): 25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Booth R (2006) Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf Fusion 7(1): 19–34

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cadoli M, Donini FM (1997) survey on knowledge compilation. AI Commun 10(3–4): 137–150

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20(1–2): 3–50

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Darke P, Shanks G (1996) Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: a framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches. Requir Eng V1(2): 88–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dubois D, Lang J, Prade H (1994) Possibilistic logic, pp 439–513

  18. Easterbrook S (1991) Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl Acquis 3(3): 255–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Easterbrook S (1994) Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. Requirements engineering: social and technical issues, pp 41–65

  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 411–420

  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 72–80

  22. Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1994) Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(8): 569–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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): 31–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 19–32

  25. Gervasi V, Zowghi D (2005) Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 14(3): 277–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ghose A, Lin Q (2006) Viewpoints merging via incrementally elicited ranked structures. In: QSIC, pp 141–150

  27. Goldin L, Berry DM (1997) Abstfinder, a prototype natural language text abstraction finder for use in requirements elicitation. Autom Softw Eng 4(4): 375–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ide N, Vronis J (1998) Word sense disambiguation: the state of the art. Comput Linguist 24: 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jøsang A (2001) A logic for uncertain probabilities. Int J Uncertain Fuzzy Knowl Syst 9(3): 279–212

    Google Scholar 

  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 1133–1140

  31. Kaiya H, Horai H, Saeki M (2002) Agora: attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: Requirement engineering conference, p 13

  32. Konieczny S (2004) Belief base merging as a game. J Appl Non-Classical Logics 14(3): 275–294

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Kotis K, Vouros A (2006) Human-centered ontology engineering: the hcome methodology. Knowl Inf Syst 10(1): 109–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee L, Ling W (2003) A methodology for structural conflict resolution in the integration of entity-relationship schemas. Knowl Inf Syst 5(2): 225–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lehtola L, Kauppinen M, Kujala S (2004) Requirements prioritization challenges in practice. In: PROFES, pp 497–508

  36. Leite JCSP, Freeman PA (1991) Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 17(12): 1253–1269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Liu W (2006) Measuring conflict between possibilistic uncertain information through belief function theory. In: KSEM, pp 265–277

  39. Liu W, Qi G, Bell DA (2006) Adaptive merging of prioritized knowledge bases. Fundam Inform 73(3): 389–407

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Luisa M, Mariangela F, Pierluigi I (2004) Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. Requir Eng 9(1): 40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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): 85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 103–114

  43. Mylopoulos J, Borgida A, Jarke M, Koubarakis M (1990) Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 8(4): 325–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 70–77

  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): 760–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Qi G, Liu W, Bell D (2007) Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158(23): 2535–2551

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Qi G, Liu W, Bell DA (2005) Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized belief bases. In: IJCAI, pp 552–557

  48. Robinson WN, Pawlowski SD (1999) Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(6): 816–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 564–565

  50. Sabetzadeh M, Easterbrook S (2006) View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir Eng 11(3): 174–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 165–173

  52. Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann Softw Eng V3(0): 101–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Spanoudakis G, Constantopoulos P (1995) Integrating specifications: a similarity reasoning approach. Autom Softw Eng V2(4): 311–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Spanoudakis G, Finkelstein A, Till D (1999) Overlaps in requirements engineering. Autom Softw Eng 6(2): 171–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Spanoudakis G, Zisman A (2001) Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. Handbook of software engineering and knowledge engineering, vol 1

  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): 1076–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 249–262

  59. Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Letier E (1998) Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(11): 908–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yager RR (1987) On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41(2): 93–137

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 356–367

  62. Zave P, Jackson M (1997) Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(1): 1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhu X, Jin Z (2005) Ontology-based inconsistency management of software requirements specifications. In: SOFSEM, pp 340–349

  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): 621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, E3B 5A3, Canada

    Ebrahim Bagheri & Ali A. Ghorbani

Authors
  1. Ebrahim Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali A. Ghorbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebrahim Bagheri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bagheri, E., Ghorbani, A.A. The analysis and management of non-canonical requirement specifications through a belief integration game. Knowl Inf Syst 22, 27–64 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0187-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0187-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation