Abstract
The ability to correctly analyse the impact of changes to system designs is an important goal in software engineering. A framework for addressing this problem has been proposed in which logical descriptions are developed alongside traditional representations. While changes to the resulting design have been considered, no formal framework for design change has been offered.
This paper proposes such a framework using techniques from the field of belief revision. It is shown that under a particular strategy for belief revision, called a maxi-adjustment, design revisions can be modelled using standard revision operators.
As such, the paper also offers a new area of application for belief revision. Previous attempts to apply belief revision theory have suffered from the criticism that deduced information is held on to more strongly than the facts from which it is derived. This criticism does not apply to the present application because we are concerned with goal decomposition rather than reasoning from facts, and it makes sense that goals should be held onto more strongly than the decompositions designed to achieve them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C. Alchourron, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.
J. Doyle. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12:231–272, 1979.
D. Duffy, C. MacNish, J. McDermid, and P. Morris. A framework for requirements analysis using automated reasoning. In J. Evari, K. Lyytinen, and M. Rossi, editors, Advanced Information Systems Engineering: Proc. Seventh International Conference, volume LNCS-932, pages 61–81. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 822–830, 1988.
A. Grove. Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:157–170, 1988.
H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183–203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
M. Osborne and C. K. MacNish. Processing natural language software requirement specifications. In Proc. ICRE'96: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pages 229–236. IEEE Press, 1996.
P. Peppas and M.-A. Williams. Constructive modelings for theory change. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 36(1):120–133, 1995.
E. Williams. 1st DTI/SERC Proteus Project Workshop: Understanding Changing Requirements. Address from industrial participants, 1993.
M.-A. Williams. Two operators for theory bases. In Proc. Australian Joint Artificial Intelligence Conference, pages 259–265. World Scientific, 1992.
M.-A. Williams. Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In Proc. Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1541–1550. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.
M.-A. Williams. Towards a practical approach to belief revision: Reason-based change. In Proc. Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
M.-A. Williams. Anytime belief revision. In Proc. Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997 (in press).
M.-A. Williams, M. Pagnucco, N. Foo, and B. Sims. Determining explanations using transmutations. In Proc. Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 822–830. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
MacNish, C.K., Williams, M.A. (1998). From belief revision to design revision: Applying theory change to changing requirements. In: Antoniou, G., Ghose, A.K., Truszczyński, M. (eds) Learning and Reasoning with Complex Representations. PRICAI 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1359. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64413-X_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64413-X_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64413-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69780-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive