Advertisement

Tracing the Rationale Behind UML Model Change Through Argumentation

  • Ivan J. Jureta
  • Stéphane Faulkner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4801)

Abstract

Neglecting traceability—i.e., the ability to describe and follow the life of a requirement—is known to entail misunderstanding and miscommunication, leading to the engineering of poor quality systems. Following the simple principles that (a) changes to UML model instances ought be justified to the stakeholders, (b) justification should proceed in a structured manner to ensure rigor in discussions, critique, and revisions of model instances, and (c) the concept of argument instantiated in a justification process ought to be well defined and understood, the present paper introduces the UML Traceability through Argumentation Method (UML-TAM) to enable the traceability of design rationale in UML while allowing the appropriateness of model changes to be checked by analysis of the structure of the arguments provided to justify such changes.

Keywords

Design Rationale Class Diagram Requirement Engineer Argumentation Framework Traceability Link 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniol, G., Canfora, G., De Lucia, A.: Maintaining traceability during object-oriented software evolution: a case study. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Maintenance (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y., Yue, T.: Automated Traceability Analysis for UML Model Refinements. Carleton Univ. Technical Report, TR SCE-06-06, ver.2 (August 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 6(4) (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dömges, R., Pohl, K.: Adapting Traceability Environments to Project-Specific Needs. Comm. ACM 41(12), 54–62 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egyed, A.: A Scenario-Driven Approach to Traceability. Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 123–132 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ford, M., Billington, D.: Strategies in Human Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Computat. Intel. 16(3), 446–468 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gotel, O.C.Z., Finkelstein, A.C.W.: An Analysis the Requirements Traceability Problem. Tech. Rep. TR-93-41, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotel, O.C.Z., Finkelstein, A.C.W.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Req. Eng., pp. 94–101 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gotel, O.C.Z.: Contribution Structures for Requirements Engineering. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London, England (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haumer, P., Pohl, K., Weidenhaupt, K., Jarke, M.: Improving Reviews by Extending Traceability. In: Proc. Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, J.: A Keyphrase Based Traceability Scheme. IEE Colloq. on Tools and Techn. for Maintaining Traceability During Design (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Justifying Goal Models. Proc. Int. Conf. Req. Eng., 119–128 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Letelier, P.: A Framework for Requirements Traceability in UML-Based Projects. In: Proc. Int. Worksh. on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Softw. Eng. (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louridas, P., Loucopoulos, P.: A Generic Model for Reflective Design. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 9(2) (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naslavsky, L., Alspaugh, T.A., Richardson, D.J., Ziv, H.: Using Scenarios to Support Traceability. Proc. Int. Worksh. on Traceability in emerging forms of software engineering, 25–30 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. Object Management Group, Final Adopted Specification ptc/03-08-02 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinheiro, F.A.C., Goguen, J.A.: An Object-Oriented Tool for Tracing Requirements. IEEE Software 13(2), 52–64 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pohl, K.: Process-Centered Requirements Engineering. Advanced Software Development Series. J.Wiley & Sons Ltd, Taunton, England (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pohl, K.: PRO-ART: Enabling Requirements Pre-Traceability. Proc. Int. Conf. Req. Eng., 76–85 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pohl, K., Dömges, R., Jarke, M.: Towards Method-Driven Trace Capture. Proc. Conf. Adv. Info. Syst. Eng., 103–116 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramesh, B., Dhar, V.: Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6), 498–510 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramesh, B., Stubbs, C., Powers, T., Edwards, M.: Implementing requirements traceability: A case study. Annals of Softw. Eng. 3, 397–415 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Toranzo, M., Castro, J.: A Comprehensive Traceability Model to Support the Design of Interactive Systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) ECOOP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1628, pp. 283–284. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ubayashi, N., Tamai, T., Sano, S., Maeno, Y., Murakami, S.: Model evolution with aspect-oriented mechanisms. In: Proc. Int. Worksh. Principles of Softw. Evol. (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R.: Massonet Ph.: The Meeting Scheduler Problem: Preliminary Definition. Université catholique de Louvain (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Req, pp. 249–263 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Management Research Unit (IMRU), University of NamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations