Advertisement

An Approach to Specify and Analyze Goal Model Families

  • Azalia Shamsaei
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Alireza Pourshahid
  • Edna Braun
  • Eric Yu
  • Gunter Mussbacher
  • Rasha Tawhid
  • Nick Cartwright
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7744)

Abstract

Goal-oriented languages have been used for years to model and reason about functional, non-functional, and legal requirements. It is however difficult to develop and maintain these models, especially when many models overlap with each other. This becomes an even bigger challenge when a single, generic model is used to capture a family of related goal models but different evaluations are required for each individual family member. In this work, we use ITU-T’s Goal-oriented Requirement Language (GRL) and the jUCMNav tool to illustrate the problem and to formulate a solution that exploits the flexibility of standard GRL. In addition, we report on our recent experience on the modeling of aerodrome regulations. We demonstrate the usefulness of specifying families of goal models to address challenges associated with the maintenance of models used in the regulatory domain. We finally define and illustrate a new tool-supported algorithm used to evaluate individual goal models that are members of the larger family model.

Keywords

Goal Modeling Goal-oriented Requirement Language Key Performance Indicator Legal Compliance Tools URN Variability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A Systematic Review of Goal-oriented Requirements Management Frameworks for Business Process Compliance. In: 4th Int. Work. on Requirements Engineering and Law, RELAW, pp. 25–34. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Pourshahid, A.: A Systematic Review of Compliance Measurement Based on Goals and Indicators. In: Salinesi, C., Pastor, O. (eds.) CAiSE 2011 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 83, pp. 228–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User Requirements Notation – The First Ten Years, The Next Ten Years. Journal of Software, JSW 6(5), 747–768 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), User Requirements Notation (URN) - Language definition, http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en
  5. 5.
    Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Ghanavati, S., Chen, P., Weiss, M., Foster, A.: Business process management with the User Requirements Notation. Electronic Commerce Research, ECR 9(4), 269–316 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    jUCMNav, Version 5.2.0, University of Ottawa, http://softwareengineering.ca/jucmnav
  7. 7.
    Amyot, D., Ghanavati, S., Horkoff, J., Mussbacher, G., Peyton, L., Yu, E.: Evaluating Goal Models within the Goal-oriented Requirement Language. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25(8), 841–877 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Pourshahid, A., Richards, G., Amyot, D.: Toward a Goal-Oriented, Business Intelligence Decision-Making Framework. In: Babin, G., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Kropf, P. (eds.) MCETECH 2011. LNBIP, vol. 78, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A Goal-based Framework for Contextual Requirements Modeling and Analysis. Requirements Engineering Journal 15, 439–458 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling Domain Variability in Requirements Engineering with Contexts. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 115–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Capturing Contextual Variability in i* Models. In: Proc. iStar 2011, vol. 766, pp. 96–101. CEUR-WS.org (2011), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-766/paper17.pdf
  13. 13.
    Borba, C., Silva, C.: A Comparison of Goal-Oriented Approaches to Model Software Product Lines Variability. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 244–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva, C., Borba, C., Castro, J.: A goal oriented approach to identify and configure feature models for software product lines. In: 14th Workshop on Requirements Engineering, WER 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu, Y., Leite, J.C.S.P., Lapouchnian, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Configuring features with stakeholder goals. In: Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2008, pp. 645–649. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mussbacher, G., Araújo, J., Moreira, A., Amyot, D.: AoURN-based Modeling and Analysis of Software Product Lines. Software Quality Journal 20(3-4), 645–687 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards Advanced Goal Model Analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012 2012 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Azalia Shamsaei
    • 1
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 1
  • Alireza Pourshahid
    • 1
  • Edna Braun
    • 1
  • Eric Yu
    • 2
  • Gunter Mussbacher
    • 3
  • Rasha Tawhid
    • 4
  • Nick Cartwright
  1. 1.School of Electrical Eng. and Computer ScienceUniversity of OttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityCanada
  4. 4.Carleton UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations