Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Mirbel, Isabelle; Villata, Serena

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32897-8_9

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other approaches have looked into detecting syntactic and static semantic issues with respect to the correctness of goal models, including well formedness in GRL [2,4] and complexity and incompleteness for i* [11] and KAOS [9]. Several approaches have also looked into the use of consistent vocabularies in such models [27,28,35]. For quantitative aspects, such as weights on contribution links, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique [41] has recently been used to take into consideration the opinions of many stakeholders, through surveys based on pairwise comparisons.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models

Hassine

Amyot

2015

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One significant problem requirements engineers have to cope with is the management of unclear requirements, ambiguities, and conflicts that may arise between stakeholders. Such issues may be desirable since they may allow for further elicitation of requirements that would have been missed otherwise. Goal models capture the objectives and other intentions of different stakeholders, together with their relationships. They can be used to refine unclear requirements and to detect conflicts and ambiguities early during model validation. However, resolving such ambiguities and conflicts is key for the successful implementation of the goal models. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to validate models in the Goal-oriented Requirement Language and resolve conflicts between the perspectives of intervening stakeholders (and especially between stakeholders of a given group). Our approach is based on a statistical analysis of empirical data that we collect from surveys designed for each group of stakeholders. We apply concept analysis in order to fix goal-model artifacts that are subject to conCommunicated by Prof. Ketil Stølen. flict. We illustrate our approach using a case study of a goal model describing the involvement of undergraduate students in university research activities.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models

Hassine

Amyot

2015

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, both [12] and [13] propose argumentation as a tool for identifying and analysing inconsistencies in requirements. An argumentation-based method for reasoning about the implications of security risks and the satisfaction of security requirements is given in [14].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

Black

McBurney

Zschaler

2014

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Software design is an important creative step in the engineering of software systems, yet we know surprisingly little about how humans actually do it. While it has been argued before that there is a need for formal frameworks to help capture design dialogues in a format amenable to analysis, there is almost no work that actually attempts to do so. In this paper, we take a first step in this direction by exploring the application of concepts from agent dialogues to the description of actual design dialogues between human software designers. We have found that this can be done in principle and present a set of dialogue moves that we have found useful in the coding of an example dialogue. Through this formulation of the dialogue, we were able to identify some interesting patterns of moves and dialogue structures. More importantly, we believe that such a representation of design dialogues provides a good basis for a better understanding of how designers interact.

show abstract

“…The argumentation framework shows that two requirements are inconsistent without going into the details of their inconsistency. Mirbel et al [18] uses the metaargumentation theory to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. While Bagheri and Ensan [13] concentrate only on the conflicts relation, in [18] all the relations required to organize goals (AND/OR-decomposition, conflict, require and equivalence dependencies) are taken into consideration.…”

Section: Mapping Requirements Models To Formal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mirbel et al [18] uses the metaargumentation theory to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. While Bagheri and Ensan [13] concentrate only on the conflicts relation, in [18] all the relations required to organize goals (AND/OR-decomposition, conflict, require and equivalence dependencies) are taken into consideration. These two approaches using argumentation framework do not support reasoning about requirements relations by combining multiple requirements models in different modeling languages.…”

Section: Mapping Requirements Models To Formal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A metamodeling approach for reasoning on multiple requirements models

Göknil¹,

Kurtev²,

Millo³

2013

2013 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The complex software development projects of today may require developers to use multiple requirements engineering approaches. Different teams may have to use different requirements modeling formalisms to express requirements related to their assigned parts of a given project. This situation poses difficulties in achieving interoperability and integration of requirements models for the purpose of reasoning on the overall system requirements. It is challenging to compose distributed models expressed in different notations and to reason on the composed models. In this paper we present a metamodeling approach which allows reasoning about requirements and their relations on the whole/composed models expressed in different requirements modeling approaches. In a previous work we expressed the structure of requirements documents as a requirements metamodel in which the most important elements are requirements relations and their types. The semantics of these elements is given in First Order Logic (FOL) and allows two activities: inferring new relations from the initial set of relations and checking consistency of relations. In this work we use the requirements metamodel as a core metamodel to be specialized for different requirements modeling approaches and notations such as Product-line and SysML. Mainly, the requirements relations in the metamodel are specialized to support relations in different requirements modeling approaches. The specialization allows using the same semantics and reasoning mechanism of the core metamodel for multiple requirements modeling approaches. To illustrate the approach we use an example from automotive domain expressed with two modeling approaches: product-line requirements models and SysML for system requirements.

show abstract

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models

An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

A metamodeling approach for reasoning on multiple requirements models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About