Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

  • Isabelle Mirbel
  • Serena Villata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7486)


Requirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ab Aziz, R., Zowghi, D., McBride, T.: Towards a Classification of Requirements Relationships. In: 21st International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 26–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User Requirements Notation: The First Ten Years, The Next Ten Years. Journal of Software 6(5), 747–768 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bagheri, E., Ensan, F.: Consolidating multiple requirement specifications through argumentation. In: 26th Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 659–666 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Afra: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of argumentation. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the Acceptability of Meta-arguments. In: International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 259–262 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.-M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 297–355 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: 3rd International Conference Computational Models of Argument, pp. 40–51. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling Early Requirements in Tropos: A Transformation Based Approach. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 151–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(1), 83–109 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A., Villata, S.: Changing ones mind: Erase or rewind? In: 22nd International Joint Conference Artificial Intelligence, pp. 164–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.-M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the Tropos methodology. In: Agent-oriented Software Development, vol. 18(2), pp. 159–171 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Veldhuis, J.-W.: Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing. Software and System Modeling 10(1), 31–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ingolfo, S., Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Establishing Regulatory Compliance for Software Requirements. In: 30th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 47–61 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jureta, I., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: Analysis of Multi-Party Agreement in Requirements Validation. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 57–66 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, vol. 249 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., Letier, E.: Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(11), 908–926 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 21(6), 959–1003 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering. Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling. Requirement Engineering 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Argumentation Patterns. In: 8th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 133–150 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Arguing about the Trustworthiness of the Information Sources. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 74–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Mirbel
    • 1
  • Serena Villata
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Nice Sophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.INRIA Sophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations