Advertisement

An Automated Change Impact Analysis Approach to GRL Models

  • Hasan Salim Alkaf
  • Jameleddine HassineEmail author
  • Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj
  • Luay Alawneh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10567)

Abstract

Goal-oriented approaches to requirements engineering have gained momentum with the development of many frameworks, methods, and tools. As stakeholders’ needs evolve, goal models evolve quickly and undergo many changes in order to accommodate the rapid changes of stakeholders’ goals, technologies, and business environments. Therefore, there is a need for mechanisms to identify and analyze the impact of changes in goal models. In this paper, we propose a Change Impact Analysis (CIA) approach to Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL), part of ITU-T’s User Requirement Notation (URN) standard. Given a suggested modification within a given GRL model, our approach allows for the identification of all impacted GRL elements within the targeted model as well as across all GRL models that are linked to it through URN Links. Furthermore, the proposed approach allows for the identification of the potentially impacted GRL evaluation strategies. The developed GRL-based CIA approach is implemented as a feature within the Eclipse-based jUCMNav framework. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach using two real-world GRL specifications.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for funding this work through project No. FT151004.

References

  1. 1.
    Yu, E.S.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Symposium on Engineering, Requirements, pp. 226–235. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the tropos methodology. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18, 159–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), User Requirements Notation (URN) language definition, Geneva, Switzerland (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(10), 978–1005 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohner, S.A., Arnold, R.S.: Software Change Impact Analysis. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, B., Sun, X., Leung, H., Zhang, S.: A survey of code-based change impact analysis techniques. Softw. Testing Verification Reliabil. 23(8), 613–646 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hassine, J.: Change impact analysis approach to GRL models. In: SOFTENG 2015: The First International Conference on Advances and Trends in Software Engineering, pp. 1–6. IARIA (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    jUCMNav v7.0.0: jUCMNav Project (tool, documentation, and meta-model) (2016). http://softwareengineering.ca/~jucmnav. Accessed June 2017
  9. 9.
    Hassine, J., Alshayeb, M.: Measurement of actor external dependencies in GRL models. In: Dalpiaz, F., Horkoff, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh International i* Workshop Co-Located with the 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2014), Thessaloniki, Greece, 16–17 June 2014, vol. 1157 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiser, M.: Program slicing. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1981), Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 439–449. IEEE Press (1981)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehnert, S.: A taxonomy for software change impact analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution and the 7th Annual ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution, pp. 41–50. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Settimi, R., BenKhadra, O., Berezhanskaya, E., Christina, S.: Goal-centric traceability for managing non-functional requirements. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 362–371. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tanabe, D., Uno, K., Akemine, K., Yoshikawa, T., Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Supporting requirements change management in goal oriented analysis. In: 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering (RE 2008), pp. 3–12. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, W.T., Deng, W.Y., Lee, J., Lee, S.J.: Change impact analysis with a goal-driven traceability-based approach. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(8), 878–908 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ernst, N.A., Borgida, A., Jureta, I.: Finding incremental solutions for evolving requirements. In: 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2011), pp. 15–24. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakagawa, H., Ohsuga, A., Honiden, S.: A goal model elaboration for localizing changes in software evolution. In: 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2013), pp. 155–164. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grubb, A.M., Chechik, M.: Looking into the crystal ball: requirements evolution over time. In: 24th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2016), pp. 86–95, September 2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aprajita, M.G.: TimedGRL: specifying goal models over time. In: 24th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 125–134, September 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Salim Alkaf
    • 1
  • Jameleddine Hassine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj
    • 2
  • Luay Alawneh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer ScienceKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDahranSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of Software EngineeringJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan

Personalised recommendations