Conditional Dependence Networks in Requirements Engineering

  • Guido Boella
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Serena Villata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6069)


In this paper we present a new model for the requirements analysis of a system. We offer a conceptual model defined following a visual modeling language, called dependence networks. TROPOS uses a visual modeling language called dependence networks in the requirements analysis of a system, and in this paper we propose a new conceptual model extending dependence networks with norms. This improvement allows to define a new type of dependence networks, called conditional dependence networks, representing a new modeling technique for the requirements analysis of a system. Our model, moreover, allows the definition of coalition depending on different kinds of networks. We illustrate our model using the scenario of virtual organizations based on a Grid network.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bauer, B., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11(3), 207–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., Caire, P., van der Torre, L.: Autonomy implies creating one’s own norms norm negotiation in online multi-player games. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 137–156 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12, 71–79 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Changing institutional goals and beliefs of autonomous agents. In: Bui, et al. (eds.) [8], pp. 78–85Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In: Bui, et al. (eds.) [8], pp. 66–77Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C.A., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 255–266. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.): 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents (PRIMA 2008). LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caire, P., Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Conviviality masks in multiagent systems. In: Padgham, L., Parkes, D.C., Müller, J., Parsons, S. (eds.) 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1265–1268. IFAAMAS (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. Journal of Philosophy 81, 193–197 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foster, I.T.: The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. In: First IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGRID), pp. 6–7. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García-Ojeda, J.C., DeLoach, S.A., Robby, W.H.O., Valenzuela, J.: O-maSE: A customizable approach to developing multiagent development processes. In: Luck, M., Padgham, L. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII. LNCS, vol. 4951, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinny, D., Georgeff, M.P., Rao, A.S.: A methodology and modelling technique for systems of bdi agents. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 56–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minsky, N.H., Lockman, A.: Ensuring integrity by adding obligations to privileges. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 92–102 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57(1), 91–115 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On social laws for artificial agent societies: Off-line design. Artif. Intell. 73(1-2), 231–252 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sichman, J.S., Conte, R.: Multi-agent dependence by dependence graphs. In: The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 483–490. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The GAIA methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, E.: Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering. In: First IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 34–41 (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, G., Chadwick, D.W., Otenko, S.: Obligations for role based access control. In: AINA Workshops (1), pp. 424–431. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 2
  • Serena Villata
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversity of Turin 
  2. 2.Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of Luxembourg 

Personalised recommendations