Taking goal models downstream: A systematic roadmap

Horkoff, Jennifer; Li, Tong; Li, Fenglin; Salnitri, Mattia; Cardoso, Evellin; Giorgini, Paolo; Mylopoulos, John; Pimentel, João

doi:10.1109/rcis.2014.6861036

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Daneva et al evaluation, looking at existing SLRs in RE [9], finds two reviews related to GORE [13,20]. The former is the previous work of some of the authors, while the latter, focusing on compliance, was omitted from our survey as it appeared in a workshop.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work follows the same theme as previous work by some of our authors presented in [18,20], but with a different focus and method. These papers provided a SMS [20] and then a systematic literature review (SLR) [18] focusing specifically on approaches which transform or map to or from goal-oriented methods, a subset of the focus of this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In a recent RE meta-survey, Bano et al have pointed out that there has yet to be a systematic literature review of GORE publications [3]. Although a few GORE reviews exist, e.g., [1,18], they are focused on sub-topics or frameworks within GORE, and not the area in its entirety. Based in part on these past surveys and on the experiences of the authors, it is apparent that there is a large body of GORE-related publications available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These papers provided a SMS [20] and then a systematic literature review (SLR) [18] focusing specifically on approaches which transform or map to or from goal-oriented methods, a subset of the focus of this paper. These previous surveys found papers through a mix of systematic search and reference ''snowballing,'' without using the number of citations as an exclusion criterion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, much attention has been paid to the area of goal-oriented requirements engineering (GORE), where goals are used as a useful conceptualization to elicit, model, and analyze requirements, capturing alternatives and conflicts. Goal modeling has been adapted and applied to many sub-topics within requirements engineering (RE) and beyond, such as agent orientation, aspect orientation, business intelligence, model-driven development, and security. Despite extensive efforts in this field, the RE community lacks a recent, general systematic literature review of the area. In this work, we present a systematic mapping study, covering the 246 top-cited GORE-related conference and journal papers, according to Scopus. Our literature map addresses several research questions: we classify the types of papers (e.g., proposals, formalizations, meta-studies), look at the presence of evaluation, the topics covered (e.g., security, agents, scenarios), frameworks used, venues, citations, author networks, and overall publication numbers. For most questions, we evaluate trends over time. Our findings show a proliferation of papers with new ideas and few citations, with a small number of authors and papers dominating citations; however, there is a slight rise in papers which build upon past work (implementations, integrations, and extensions). We see a rise in papers concerning adaptation/variability/evolution and a slight rise in case studies. Overall, interest in GORE has increased. We use our analysis results to make recommendations concerning future GORE research and make our data publicly available.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Horkoff et al [43] conducted a systematic literature review. They created a road-map of publications that transform goal models to/from other software artifacts.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Systematic Refinement of Trustworthiness Requirements

Mohammadi

Heisel

2017

Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The trustworthiness of systems that support complex collaborative business processes is an emergent property. In order to address users' trust concerns, trustworthiness requirements of software systems must be elicited and satisfied. The aim of this paper is to address the gap that exists between end-users' trust concerns and the lack of implementation of proper trustworthiness requirements. New technologies like cloud computing bring new capabilities for hosting and offering complex collaborative business operations. However, these advances might bring undesirable side effects, e.g., introducing new vulnerabilities and threats caused by collaboration and data exchange over the Internet. Hence, users become more concerned about trust. Trust is subjective; trustworthiness requirements for addressing trust concerns are difficult to elicit, especially if there are different parties involved in the business process. We propose a user-centered trustworthiness requirement analysis and modeling framework. We integrate the subjective trust concerns into goal models and embed them into business process models as objective trustworthiness requirements. Business process model and notation is extended to enable modeling trustworthiness requirements. This paper focuses on the challenges of elicitation, refinement and modeling trustworthiness requirements. An application example from the healthcare domain is used to demonstrate our approach.

show abstract