Goal-Based Behavioral Customization of Information Systems

  • Sotirios Liaskos
  • Marin Litoiu
  • Marina Daoud Jungblut
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)


Customizing software to perfectly fit individual needs is becoming increasingly important in information systems engineering. Users want to be able to customize software behavior through reference to terms familiar to their diverse needs and experience. We present a requirements-driven approach to behavioral customization of software systems. Goal models are constructed to represent alternative behaviors that users can exhibit to achieve their goals. Customization information is then added to restrict the space of possibilities to those that fit specific users, contexts or situations. Meanwhile, elements of the goal model are mapped to units of source code. This way, customization preferences posed at the requirements level are directly translated into system customizations. Our approach, which we apply to an on-line shopping cart system, does not assume adoption of a particular development methodology, platform or variability implementation technique and keeps the reasoning computation overhead from interfering with execution of the configured application.


Information Systems Engineering Goal Modeling Software Customization Adaptive Systems 


  1. 1.
    Oreizy, P., Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: Architecture-based runtime software evolution. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1998), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 177–186 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Self-managed systems: an architectural challenge. In: Future of Software Engineering (FOSE 2007), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 259–268 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liaskos, S., McIlraith, S.A., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards augmenting requirements models with preferences. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2009), Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 565–569 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liaskos, S., McIlraith, S.A., Mylopoulos, J.: Integrating preferences into goal models for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia, pp. 135–144 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis, and design. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1994), pp. 159–168 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Penserini, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., Mylopoulos, J.: High variability design for software agents: Extending Tropos. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 2(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gacek, C., Anastasopoules, M.: Implementing product line variabilities. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26(3), 109–117 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKinley, P.K., Sadjadi, S.M., Kasten, E.P., Cheng, B.H.C.: Composing adaptive software. IEEE Computer 37(7), 56–64 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao, J., Su, X.: A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 43–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp. 411–420 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bienvenu, M., Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.: Planning with qualitative temporal preferences. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), Lake District, UK, pp. 134–144 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liaskos, S., Litoiu, M., Jungblut, M.D., Mylopoulos, J.: Goal-based Behavioral Customization of Information Systems. Technical Report CSE-2010-10, York University (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sohrabi, S., Baier, J.A., McIlraith, S.: HTN planning with preferences. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), Pasadena, CA, USA, pp. 1790–1797 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Using temporal logic to specify adaptive program semantics. Journal of Systems and Software (Special Issue on Architecting Dependable Systems) 79(10), 1361–1369 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown, G., Cheng, B.H.C., Goldsby, H., Zhang, J.: Goal-oriented specification of adaptation requirements engineering in adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Self-Adaptation and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS 2006), pp. 23–29. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simmons, B.: Strategy-trees: A Novel Approach to Policy-Based Management. PhD thesis, University of Western Ontario (February 2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lapouchnian, A., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: Requirements-driven design and configuration management of business processes. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 246–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: On managing business processes variants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 68(7), 642–664 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., La Rosa, M.: Configurable workflow models. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 17(02), 177–221 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Information Systems 30(5), 349 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutcliffe, A.G., Maiden, N.A.M., Minocha, S., Manuel, D.: Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12), 1072–1088 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baresi, L., Pasquale, L.: Live goals for adaptive service compositions. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS 2010), pp. 114–123 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J.N., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling step-wise refinement. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2003), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 187–197 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Apel, S., Kastner, C., Lengauer, C.: Featurehouse: Language-independent, automated software composition. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2009), pp. 221–231 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-m., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Liu, Y., Auletta, V. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, p. 313. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cleaveland, J.C.: Building application generators. IEEE Software 5(4), 25–33 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming - Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sohrabi, S., Prokoshyna, N., McIlraith, S.A.: Web service composition via generic procedures and customizing user preferences. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 597–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu, D., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J., Nau, D.S.: Automating DAML-S web services composition using SHOP2. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sotirios Liaskos
    • 1
  • Marin Litoiu
    • 1
  • Marina Daoud Jungblut
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information TechnologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of TrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations