Skip to main content

Measuring Inconsistency in Requirements Specifications

  • Conference paper
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3571))

Abstract

In the field of requirements engineering, measuring inconsistency is crucial to effective inconsistency management. A practical measure must consider both the degree and significance of inconsistency in specification. The main contribution of this paper is providing an approach for measuring inconsistent specification in terms of the priority-based scoring vector, which integrates the measure of the degree of inconsistency with the measure of the significance of inconsistency. In detail, for each specification Δ that consists of a set of requirements statements, if L is a m-level priority set, we define a m-dimensional priority-based significance vector \(\vec{V}\) to measure the significance of the inconsistency in Δ. Furthermore, a priority-based scoring vector \(\vec{S_p}\): \(\mathcal{P}(\Delta) \longrightarrow N^{m+1}\) (Δ)→ Nm + 1 has been defined to provide an ordering relation over specifications that describes which specification is “more essentially inconsistent than” others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S., Russo, A.: Leveraging inconsistency in software development. IEEE Computer 33, 24–29 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S., Russo, A.: Making inconsistency respectable in software development. Journal of Systems and Software 58, 171–180 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: Software Engineering Notes. In: 2nd international workshop on living with inconsistency, vol. 26, pp. 76–78 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hunter, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Managing inconsistent specification. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 7, 335–367 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunter, A.: Evaluating the significance of inconsistency. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on AI (IJCAI 2003), pp. 468–473 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wiegers, K.E.: Software Requirements, 2nd edn. Microsoft Press (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 830–1998, I.S.: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hunter, A.: Logical comparison of inconsistent perspectives using scoring functions. Knowledge and Information Systems Journal 6, 528–543 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 191–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledge via quasi-classical models. In: Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pp. 68–73. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois, D.: Lang, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic. In: Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, pp. 439–531. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, S.H.: Encoding information fusion in possibilistic logic:a general framework for rational syntactic merging. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2000, pp. 3–7. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Quantifying information and contradiction in propositional logic through test actions. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2003, pp. 106–111. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wiegers, K.: First things first:prioritizing requirements. Software Development 7, 48–53 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Mu, K., Jin, Z., Lu, R., Liu, W. (2005). Measuring Inconsistency in Requirements Specifications. In: Godo, L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_38

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27326-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31888-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics