Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach
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.
- 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
- 3.Bagheri, E., Ensan, F.: Consolidating multiple requirement specifications through argumentation. In: 26th Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 659–666 (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of argumentation. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, vol. 249 (2001)Google Scholar
- 22.Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering. Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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