Automated Software Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 171–198 | Cite as

Overlaps in Requirements Engineering

  • George Spanoudakis
  • Anthony Finkelstein
  • David Till
Article

Abstract

Although overlap between specifications—that is the incorporation of elements which designate common aspects of the system of concern—is a precondition for specification inconsistency, it has only been a side concern in requirements engineering research. This paper is concerned with overlaps. It defines overlap relations in terms of specification interpretations, identifies properties of these relations which are derived from the proposed definition, shows how overlaps may affect the detection of inconsistency; shows how specifications could be rewritten to reflect overlap relations and still be amenable to consistency checking using theorem proving; analyses various methods that have been proposed for identifying overlaps with respect to the proposed definition; and outlines directions for future research.

requirements engineering specification overlaps specification inconsistency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boehm, B. and In, H. 1996. Identifying quality requirements conflicts. IEEE Software, March 96, 25-35.Google Scholar
  2. Easterbrook, S. 1991. Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowledge Acquisition, 3:255-289.Google Scholar
  3. Easterbrook, S., Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., and Nuseibeh, B. 1994. Co-ordinating distributed viewPoints: The anatomy of a consistency check. International Journal on Concurrent Engineering: Research & Applications, 2(3):209-222.Google Scholar
  4. Easterbrook, S. and Nuseibeh, B. 1996. Using viewPoints for inconsistency management. Software Engineering Journal, 11(1):31-43.Google Scholar
  5. Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A., Montangero, C., and Stevens R. 1997. Standards compliant software development. ICSE '97 Workshop on Living with Inconsistency. Available by ftp from: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/w.emmerich/publications/.Google Scholar
  6. Fiadeiro, J. and Maibaum, T. 1995. Interconnecting formalisms: Supporting modularity, reuse and incrementality. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE '95), ACM Press, pp. 1-8.Google Scholar
  7. Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., and Nuseibeh, B. 1994. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(8):569-578.Google Scholar
  8. Finkelstein, A., Spanoudakis, G., and Till, D. 1996. Managing Interference. Joint Proceedings of the Sigsoft '96 Workshops—Viewpoints '96, ACM Press, pp. 172-174.Google Scholar
  9. Gruber, T., 1993. Towards principles for the design of shared ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Proceedings of International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy. Also available as Technical Report KSL 93-04, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Guarino, N. 1994. The ontological level. In R. Casati, B. Smith, and G. White, editors, Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences. Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
  11. Heitmeyer, C., Labaw, B., and Kiskis, D. 1995. Consistency checking of SCR-style requirements specifications. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE '95), IEEE CS Press, pp. 56-63.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, M. 1997. The meaning of requirements. Annals of Software Engineering, 3:5-21.Google Scholar
  13. Leite, J. and Freeman, P. 1991. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12(12):1253-1269.Google Scholar
  14. Mullery, G. 1996. Tool support for multiple viewpoints. Joint Proceedings of the Sigsoft '96 Workshops—Viewpoints '96, ACM Press, pp. 227-231.Google Scholar
  15. Nilsson, N. 1971. Problem solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Nissen, H., Jeusfeld, M., Jarke, M., Zemanek, G., and Huber, H. 1996. Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Software, March 96, 37-47.Google Scholar
  17. Ramsay, A. 1988. Formal methods in artificial intelligence. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rational, 1997. UML Semantics. Rational Software Corp., 2800 San Thomas Expressway, Santa Clara, CA, USA, version 1.1. Available by ftp from: http://www.rational.com/uml/adobe.html.Google Scholar
  19. Robinson, W. and Fickas, S. 1994. Supporting multiple perspective requirements engineering. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '94), Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 206-215.Google Scholar
  20. Rydeheard, D.E. and Burstall, R.M. 1988. Computational Category Theory. Prentice Hall, International Series in Computer Science, ISBN 0-13-162736-8.Google Scholar
  21. Shepherdson, J.C. 1988. Negation in logic programming. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 19-89.Google Scholar
  22. Shoenfield, J. 1967. Mathematical Logic. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Spanoudakis, G. and Constantopoulos, P. 1995. Integrating specifications: A similarity reasoning approach. Automated Software Engineering Journal, 2(4):311-342.Google Scholar
  24. Spanoudakis, G. and Finkelstein, A. 1997. Reconciling requirements: A method for managing interference, inconsistency and conflict. Annals of Software Engineering, 3:433-457.Google Scholar
  25. Spanoudakis, G. and Finkelstein, A., 1998. A semi-automatic process of identifying overlaps and inconsistencies between requirements specifications. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Object Oriented Information Systems (OOIS '98), Springer, pp. 405-426.Google Scholar
  26. van Lamsweerde, A. 1996. Divergent views in goal-driven requirements engineering. Joint Proceedings of the Sigsoft '96 Workshops—Viewpoints '96, ACM Press, pp. 252-256.Google Scholar
  27. Zave, P. and Jackson, M. 1993. Conjunction as composition. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2(4):379-411.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Spanoudakis
    • 1
  • Anthony Finkelstein
    • 2
  • David Till
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingCity University, Northampton SquareLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations