Advertisement

Supporting Requirements Analysis in Tropos: A Planning-Based Approach

  • Volha Bryl
  • Paolo Giorgini
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5044)

Abstract

Software systems are becoming more and more part of human life influencing organizational and social activities. This introduces the need of considering the design of a software system as an integral part of the organizational and social structure development. Alternative requirements and design models have to be evaluated and selected from a social perspective finding a right trade-off between the technical and social dimension. In this paper, we present a Tropos-based approach for requirements analysis, which adopts planning techniques for exploring the space of requirements alternatives and a number of social criteria for their evaluation. We describe the tool-supported analysis process with the help of a case study (the e-voting system), which is a part of a project funded by the Autonomous Province of Trento.

Keywords

Organizational Setting Requirement Analysis Requirement Model Maximum Complexity Capability Tree 
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.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. JAAMAS 8(3), 203–236 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryl, V., Ferrario, R., Mattioli, A., Villafiorita, A.: Evaluating Procedural Alternatives in an e-Voting Domain: Lesson Learned. Technical Report DIT-07-005, University of Trento (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryl, V., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Designing cooperative IS: Exploring and evaluating alternatives. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 533–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryl, V., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Designing security requirements models through planning. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J.: Pddl2.2: The language for the classical part of the 4th international planning competition. Technical Report 195, University of Freiburg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    LPG Homepage. LPG-td Planner, http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/lpg/
  8. 8.
    Tiella, R., Villafiorita, A., Tomasi, S.: Specification of the Control Logic of an eVoting System in UML: the ProVotE experience. In: CSDUML 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Villafiorita, A., Fasanelli, G.: Transitioning to eVoting: the ProVotE project and Trentino’s experience. In: EGOV 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weld, D.S.: Recent Advances in AI Planning. AI Magazine 20(2), 93–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu, E.S.-K.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis, University of Toronto (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volha Bryl
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Trento, DITPovoItaly

Personalised recommendations