Advertisement

Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications

  • A. Finkelstein
  • D. Gabbay
  • A. Hunter
  • J. Kramer
  • B. Nuseibeh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 717)

Abstract

The development of most large and complex systems necessarily involves many people — each with their own perspectives on the system defined by their knowledge, responsibilities, and commitments. To address this we have advocated distributed development of specifications from multiple perspectives. However, this leads to problems of identifying and handling inconsistencies between such perspectives. Maintaining absolute consistency is not always possible. Often this is not even desirable since this can unnecessarily constrain the development process, and can lead to the loss of important information. Indeed since the real-world forces us to work with inconsistencies, we should formalise some of the usually informal or extra-logical ways of responding to them. This is not necessarily done by eradicating inconsistencies but rather by supplying logical rules specifying how we should act on them. To achieve this, we combine two lines of existing research: the Viewpoints framework for perspective development, interaction and organisation, and a logic-based approach to inconsistency handling. This paper presents our technique for inconsistency handling in the Viewpoints framework by using simple examples.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Classical Logic Paraconsistent Logic Action Table Common Data Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Alderson (1991), “Meta-CASE technology”, Proc. of European Symposium on Software Development Environments and CASE Technology, Königswinter, June 1991, LNCS 509, Endres & Weber (eds.), 81–91, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.R. Anderson & N.D. Belnap (1976), The Logic of Entailment, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Balzer (1991), “Tolerating Inconsistency”, Proc. of 13th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-13), 13–17th May 1991, Austin Texas, 158–165.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Barringer, M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, G. Gough & R. Owens (1989), “MetateM: A framework for programming in temporal logic”, REX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, LNCS 430, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Barringer, M. Fisher, D. Gabbay & A. Hunter (1991), “Meta-reasoning in executable temporal logic”, Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 453–460, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bell (1990), “Non-monotonic reasoning, non-monotonic logics, and reasoning about change”, Artificial Intelligence Review, 4, 79–108.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Blair & V. Subrahmanian (1989), “Paraconsistent logic programming”, Theoretical Computer Science, 68, 135–154.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N.C. da Costa (1974), “On the theory of inconsistent formal systems”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 497–510.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Doyle (1979), “A truth maintenance system”, Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–272.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Finger, P. McBrien & R. Owens (1991), “Databases and executable temporal logic”, Proc. of ESPRIT conference 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer & M. Goedicke (1990), “ViewPoint Oriented Software Development”, Proc. of International Workshop on Software Engineering and its Applications, Toulouse, France, December 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer & M. Hales (1992), “Process Modelling: a critical analysis”, Integrated Software Engineering with Reuse, P. Walton & N. Maiden (eds.), Chapman and Hall and UNICOM, 137–148.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein & M. Goedicke (1992), “ViewPoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development”, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2(1):31–58, March 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Gabbay (1989), “Declarative Past and Imperative Future: Executable temporal logic for interactive systems”, Proc. of Colloquium on Temporal Logic in Specification, B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer & A. Pnueli (eds.), LNCS 398, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Gabbay & A. Hunter (1991), “Making inconsistency respectable: Part 1”, Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence Research, Ph. Jorrand & J. Kelemen (eds.), LNCS 535, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Gabbay & A. Hunter (1992), “Making inconsistency respectable: Part 2”, Technical report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Gabbay & H. Ohlbach (1992), “Quantifier Elimination in Second Order Predicate Logic”, Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 453–460, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Graubmann (1992), “The HyperView Tool Standard Methods”, REX Technical report REX-WP3-SIE-021-V1.0, Siemens, Munich, Germany, January '92.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Hailpern (ed.) (1986) “Special issue on multiparadigm languages and environments”, IEEE Software, 3(1): 10–77, Special issue on multiparadigm languages and environments, January 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Kramer & A. Finkelstein (1991), “A Configurable Framework for Method and Tool Integration”, Proc. of European Symposium on Software Development Environments and CASE Technology, Königswinter, Germany, June 1991, LNCS 509, 233–257, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Kramer (1991), “CASE Support for the Software Process: A Research Viewpoint”, Proc. of 3rd European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC 91), Milan, Italy, October 1991, LNCS 550, A. van Lamsweerde (ed.), 499–503, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Krogstie, P. McBrien, R. Owens & A. Selvit (1991), “Information systems development using a combination of process and rule-based approaches”, Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Meyers & S.P. Reiss (1991) “A System for Multiparadigm Development of Software Systems”, Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Como, Italy, 202–209, 25–26th October 1991, IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Mullery (1985), “Acquisition — Environment”, Distributed Systems: Methods and Tools for Specification, M. Paul & H. Siegert (eds.), LNCS 190, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Nuseibeh & A. Finkelstein (1992), “ViewPoints: A Vehicle for Method and Tool Integration”, Proc. of Fifth International Workshop on CASE (CASE '92), 6–10th July 1992, Montreal Canada, 50–60, IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer & A. Finkelstein (1993), “Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification”, (to appear in) Proc. of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-15), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 17–21st May 1993, IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Nuseibeh, A. Finkelstein & J. Kramer (1993), “Fine-Grain Process Modelling”, Technical report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. Pequeno & A. Buchsbaum (1991), “The logic of epistemic inconsistency”, Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 453–460, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Pocock (1991), “VSF and its relationship to Open Systems and Standard Repositories”, Proc. of European Symposium on Software Development Environments and CASE Technology, Königswinter, June 1991, LNCS 509, Endres & Weber (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 53–68.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Reiter (1978), “On Closed World Databases”, Logic & Databases, H. Gallaire & J. Minker (eds.), Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Sadri & R. Kowalski (1986), “An application of general theorem proving to database integrity”, Technical report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. Wagner (1991), “Ex contradictione nihil sequitur”, Proc. of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A.I. Wasserman & P.A. Pircher (1987) “A Graphical, Extensible Integrated Environment for Software Development”, Proc. of 2nd Symposium on Practical Software Development Environments, SIGPlan Notices, 22(1):131–142, January 1987, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A.I. Wasserman (1990) “Integration in Software Engineering Environments”, Proc. of International Workshop on Environments, Chinon, France, September 1989, LNCS 457, F. Long (ed.), 137–149, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D.S. Wile (1991) “Integrating syntaxes and their associated semantics”, USC/Information Sciences Institute Technical Report, 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.C. Wileden, A.L. Wolf, W.R. Rosenblatt & P.L. Tarr (1991) “Specification-level interoperability”, Communications of the ACM, 34(5):72–87, May 1991.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Zave & M. Jackson, “Conjunction as Composition”, (to appear in) Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Finkelstein
    • 1
  • D. Gabbay
    • 1
  • A. Hunter
    • 1
  • J. Kramer
    • 1
  • B. Nuseibeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College of Science Technology and MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations