Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering

Lamsweerde, Axel van; Darimont, Robert; Letier, Emmanuel

doi:10.1109/32.730542

Cited by 449 publications

(342 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

328

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In van Lamsweerde et al [20], for instance, goals are specified in a formal way to support reasoning on their content. In Giorgini et al [14], an approach is proposed to analyze goal hierarchies in order to establish goals satisfiability (full, partial or none).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mirbel

Villata

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mirbel

Villata

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In TopTeam Analyst [48], there are four relation types. Three of these relations (traces into, impact, used in) are directed and one of the relations (trace) is undirected.…”

Section: Tool Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Requirements traceability is the ability to relate requirements back to stakeholders and forward to corresponding design artifacts, code, and test cases. Although considerable research has been devoted to relating requirements in both forward and backward directions, less attention has been paid to relating requirements with other requirements. Relations between requirements influence a number of activities during software development such as consistency checking and change management. In most approaches and tools, there is a lack of precise definition of requirements relations. In this respect, deficient results may be produced. In this paper, we aim at formal definitions of the relation types in order to enable reasoning about requirements relations. We give a requirements metamodel with commonly used relation types. The semantics of the relations is provided with a formalization in first-order logic. We use the formalization for consistency checking of relations and for inferring new relations. A tool has been built to support both reasoning activities. We illustrate our approach in an example which shows that the formal semantics of relation types enables new relations to be inferred and contradicting relations in requirements documents to be determined.

show abstract

“…Checking Goal Conflict. Conflict arises when two or more goals prescribe the performance of inconsistent actions under the same conditions [5]. Conflicts are checked by comparing the conditions for goals that assign different values to the same variables.…”

Section: Checking the Goal-model (Phase Ii)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The GOPCSD Tool: An Integrated Development Environment for Process Control Requirements and Design

El-Maddah

Maibaum

2004

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The GOPCSD (Goal Oriented Process Control Systems Design) tool is an integrated environment, where the process control systems engineer can construct, import, check, reason about, modify, validate requirements specifications and generate in the B specification language a formal specification of such process control requirements. Borrowing from the KAOS method, the GOPCSD tool adopts the goal-oriented hierarchy concept to enable easy tracing of the user needs to the requirements level, as well as the requirements to the design specification level. The tool offers a library and formal and informal checks and tests to aid correction and enhancement of the requirements; in addition, the normal systems engineer can use the tool effectively and automatically generate a B formal specification, thus not demanding a high-level of knowledge about the sophisticated mathematics supporting formal methods like B.

show abstract

Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering

Cited by 449 publications

References 50 publications

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

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

Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing

The GOPCSD Tool: An Integrated Development Environment for Process Control Requirements and Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About