Handling Inconsistency In Distributed Software Requirements Specifications Based On Prioritized Merging

• Autorzy: Mu K. , Jin Z. , Yue A. , Liu W. , Lu R. , Bell D.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Developing a desirable framework for handling inconsistencies in software requirements specifications is a challenging problem. It has been widely recognized that the relative priority of requirements can help developers to make some necessary trade-off decisions for resolving conflicts. However, for most distributed development such as viewpoints-based approaches, different stakeholders may assign different levels of priority to the same shared requirements statement from their own perspectives. The disagreement in the local levels of priority assigned to the same shared requirements statement often puts developers into a dilemma during the inconsistency handling process. The main contribution of this paper is to present a prioritized merging-based framework for handling inconsistency in distributed software requirements specifications. Given a set of distributed inconsistent requirements collections with the local prioritization, we first construct a requirements specification with a prioritization from an overall perspective. We provide two approaches to constructing a requirements specification with the global prioritization, including a merging-based construction and a priority vector-based construction. Following this, we derive proposals for handling inconsistencies from the globally prioritized requirements specification in terms of prioritized merging. Moreover, from the overall perspective, these proposals may be viewed as the most appropriate to modifying the given inconsistent requirements specification in the sense of the ordering relation over all the consistent subsets of the requirements specification. Finally, we consider applying negotiation-based techniques to viewpoints so as to identify an acceptable common proposal from these proposals.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

inconsistency; requirements engineering; prioritized merging; local prioritization

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: Vol. 91, nr 3-4
• Strony: 631--670
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Mu K.

autor

Jin Z.

autor

Yue A.

autor

Liu W.

autor

Lu R.

autor

Bell D.

• School of Mathematical Sciences Peking University Beijing 100871, P.R.China,

Bibliografia

• [1] CHAOS: Software Development Report by the Standish Group. Avaiable online at http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos.html (1995).
• [2] Ibanez, M.: European user survey analysis. Tech. rep. ESI report TR95104. European Software Institute, Zamudio, Spain. http://www.esi.es (1996).
• [3] Davis, A.M.: Software Requirements:Objects,Functions, and States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:PTR Prentice Hall (1993).
• [4] Leffingwell, D.: Calculating the return on investment from more effective require- ments management. American Programmer 10 (1997).
• [5] Leffingwell, D.Widrig, D.: Managing Software Requirements: A Use Case Approach. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley (2003)
• [6] Finkelsetin, A., J.Kramer, B.Nuseibeh, L.Finkelstein, M.Goedick, "Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development", International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2(1):31-58,1992.
• [7] Kotonya, G., I.Sommerville: Viewpoints for requirements definition. IEE Software Eng.Journal 7 (1992) 375-387.
• [8] Andrade, J., Ares, J., Garcia, R., Pazos, J., Rodriguez, S., Silva, A.: A methodological framework for viewpoint-oriented conceptual modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30 (2004) 282-294.
• [9] Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Viewpoints: meaningful relationships are difficult! In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE CS Press (2003) 676-681.
• [10] Gervasi, V., D.Zowghi: Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language re quirements.ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodologies 14 (2005) 277-330.
• [11] Hunter, A., B.Nuseibeh: Managing inconsistent specification. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 7 (1998) 335-367.
• [12] Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V.: On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution. Information and Software Technology 45 (2003) 993-1009.
• [13] Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S., Russo, A.: Leveraging inconsistency in software development. IEEE Computer 33 (2000) 24-29.
• [14] Nuseibeh, B., S.Easterbrook, A.Russo: Making inconsistency respectable in software development. Journal of Systems and Software 58 (2001) 171-180.
• [15] Gabbay, D., Hunter, A.: Making inconsistency respectable 2:meta-level handling of inconsistent data. In: ECSQARU93,LNCS. Volume 747. Springer (1993) 129-136.
• [16] Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 20 (1994) 569-578.
• [17] Wiegers, K.: First things first:prioritizing requirements. Software Development 7 (1999) 48-53.
• [18] Davis, A.: Just Enough Requirements Management:Where Software Development Meets Marking. Dorset House (2005)
• [19] Delgrande, J., Dubois, D., Lang, J.: Iterated revision as priorited merging. In: KR 06. (2006) 210-220.
• [20] Yue, A., Liu, W., Hunter, A.: Approaches to constructiing a stratified merged knowledge base. In: ECSQARU2007, LNCS. (2007).
• [21] Wiegers, K.E.: Software Requirements,2nd ed. Microsoft Press (2003).
• [22] Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14 (1997) 67-74.
• [23] Pardee, J.: To Satisfy and Delight Your Customer: How to Manage for Customer Value. New York:Dorset House Publishing (1996).
• [24] Spanoudakis, G., Finkelstein, A., Till, D.: Overlaps in requirements engineering. Automated Software Engineering 6 (1999) 171-198.
• [25] Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dobois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency manage- ment and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Proceedings of IJCAI93. (1993) 640-647.
• [26] Brewka, G.: A rank-based description language for qualitative preferences. In: Proc. of ECAI'04. (2004) 303-307.
• [27] Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proc. of IJCAI 1989. (1989) 1043-1048.
• [28] Nebel, B.: Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. In: Proc. of KR91. (1991) 417-428.
• [29] Lehmann, D.: Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15 (1995) 61-82.
• [30] Mu, K., Jin, Z.: Identifying acceptable common proposals for handling inconsistent software requirements. In: FORTE2007, LNCS4754. (2007) 296-308.
• [31] Lang, J.: From logical preference representation to combinatorial vote. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann (2002) 277-288.
• [32] Mu, K., Liu, W., Jin, Z., Lu, R., Yue, A., Bell, D.: A merging-based approach to handling inconsistency in locally prioritized software requirements. In: KSEM2007, LNCS4798. (2007)10-114.
• [33] Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence 83 (1996) 363-378.
• [34] Easterbrook, S., M. Chechik: A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), Toronto, Canada (2001) 411-420.
• [35] Barragáns Martinez, A. B, J. P. Arias, A.F. Vilas, J.G. Duque, M.L. Nores, R.P.D. Redondo, Y.B. Fernández: On the interplay between inconsistency and incompleteness in multi-perspective requirements specification. Information and Software Technology 50(2008) 296-321.
• [36] Ryan, L. O.: "Efficient algorithms for clause learning sat solvers",Masters Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2004.
• [37] Bird. R., and Hinze, R.:"Functional pearl:Trouble shared is trouble halved", Proc. of the 2003 ACMSIGPLAN Workshop on Haskell, pp. 1-6, 2003.
• [38] Grover, C., Brew, C., Moens, M., and Manandhar, S.: "Priority union and generalization in dsicourse grammar". Proc. of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 17-24, 1994.
• [39] Malouf, R.: Maximal consistent subsets, Computational Linguistics, vol.33, no.2,pp.153-160,2007.
• [40] Robinson, W.N.: Negotiation behavior during requirements specification. In: ICSE1990, 268-276.
• [41] Robinson, W.N., Volkov, V.: Supporting the negotiation life cycle. Communications of the ACM 41 (1998) 95-102
• [42] Wooldridge, M., and Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In Proceedings of ECAI2000, 393-397. 2000.
• [43] Sierra, C., Jennings, N., Noriega, P., and Parsons, S.: A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Intelligent Agents IV (LNAI Vol. 1365)(1998)177-192.