CaRE: a refinement calculus for requirements engineering based on argumentation theory (original) (raw)

References

  1. Bagheri, E., Ensan, F.: Consolidating Multiple Requirement Specifications Through Argumentation. ACM SAC pp. 659–666 (2011)
  2. Black, E., McBurney, P., Zschaler, S.: Towards agent dialogue as a tool for capturing software design discussions. In: International Workshop on Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation, pp. 95–110. Springer (2013)
  3. Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)
    Article MATH Google Scholar
  4. Cailliau, A., van Lamsweerde, A.: Assessing requirements-related risks through probabilistic goals and obstacles. Requir. Eng. 18(2), 129–146 (2013)
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Cailliau, A., van Lamsweerde, A.: Runtime monitoring and resolution of probabilistic obstacles to system goals. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 14(1), 3:1-3:40 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3337800
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 111–123. Springer, Berlin (2006)
    Chapter MATH Google Scholar
  7. Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20(1–2), 3–50 (1993)
    Article MATH Google Scholar
  8. De Kleer, J.: An assumption-based TMS. Artif. Intell. 28(2), 127–162 (1986)
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. AI J 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
    MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
  10. ElRakaiby, Y., Borgida, A., Ferrari, A., Mylopoulos, J.: CaRE: A Refinement Calculus for Requirements Engineering based on Argumentation Theory (Proofs and Tool) (2020). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4156216
  11. Elrakaiby, Y., Ferrari, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Care: A refinement calculus for requirements engineering based on argumentation semantics. In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 364–369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00-24
  12. Elrakaiby, Y., Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using argumentation to explain ambiguity in requirements elicitation interviews. In: RE’17, pp. 51–60. IEEE (2017)
  13. Ernst, N.A., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J., Jureta, I.: Agile requirements evolution via paraconsistent reasoning. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering - 24th International Conference, CAiSE 2012, Gdansk, Poland, June 25–29, 2012. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7328, pp. 382–397. Springer (2012)
  14. European Union Agency for Railways: ERTMS/ETCS System Requirements Specification 3.4.0. http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Set-2-System-Requirements-Specification.aspx (2016)
  15. Fernández, D.M., Wagner, S., Kalinowski, M., Felderer, M., Mafra, P., Vetrò, A., Conte, T., Christiansson, M.T., Greer, D., Lassenius, C., et al.: Naming the pain in requirements engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22(5), 2298–2338 (2017)
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Finkelstein, A.: Modeling the software process:“not waving but drowning” (panel session) representation schemes for modelling software development. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 402–404 (1989)
  17. Franqueira, V.N.L., Tun, T.T., Yu, Y., Wieringa, R., Nuseibeh, B.: Risk and argument: a risk-based argumentation method for practical security. In: RE 2011, pp. 239–248 (2011)
  18. Ghose, A.: Formal tools for managing inconsistency and change in RE. In: Int. Workshop on Software Specification and Design, pp. 171–181 (2000). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=891138
  19. Greenspan, S.J., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: A requirements modeling language and its logic. Inf. Syst. 11(1), 9–23 (1986)
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Greenspan, S.J., Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A.: Capturing more world knowledge in the requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’82, p. 225–234. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC, USA (1982)
  21. Haley, C.B., Laney, R., Moffett, J.D., Nuseibeh, B.: Security requirements engineering: a framework for representation and analysis. TSE 34(1), 133–153 (2008)
    Google Scholar
  22. Heaven, W., Letier, E.: Simulating and optimising design decisions in quantitative goal models. In: 2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 79–88. IEEE (2011)
  23. Hegel, G.W.F.: Ph’anomenologie des Geistes (1807)
  24. Hoare, C.A.R., Lauer, P.E.: Consistent and complementary formal theories of the semantics of programming languages. Acta Informatica 3(2), 135–153 (1974)
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
  25. Hunter, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Analysing inconsistent specifications. In: RE, pp. 78–86 (1997). 10.1109/ISRE.1997.566844. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=566844
  26. Hunter, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Managing inconsistent specifications: reasoning, analysis, and action. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 7(4), 335–367 (1998)
    Article Google Scholar
  27. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications: IEEE Std 830–1998, 1–40 (1998)
  28. Iso/iec/ieee international standard—systems and software engineering– life cycle processes—equirements engineering. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011(E) (2011)
  29. Ingolfo, S., Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Susi, A., Perini, A.: Arguing regulatory compliance of software requirements. DKE 87, 279–296 (2013)
    Article Google Scholar
  30. Jackson, M., Zave, P.: Deriving specifications from requirements: an example. In: ICSE’95, pp. 15–15. IEEE (1995)
  31. Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S., Schobbens, P.Y.: Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering. Requir. Eng. 13(2), 87 (2008)
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Jureta, I.J., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: Analysis of multi-party agreement in requirements validation. In: RE’09, pp. 57–66 (2009)
  33. Lamsweerde, A.V.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications, 10th edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK (2009)
    Google Scholar
  34. Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Kaos in action: the bart system. In: IFIP WG2, vol. 9 (2000)
  35. Li, F.L., Horkoff, J., Borgida, A., Guizzardi, G., Liu, L., Mylopoulos, J.: From stakeholder requirements to formal specifications through refinement. In: Conf. on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ’15), pp. 164–180. Springer (2015)
  36. Mirbel, I., Villata, S.: Enhancing Goal-based Requirements Consistency: an Argumentation-based Approach. In: Int. Work. Comput. Log. Multi-Agent Syst., pp. 110–127 (2012)
  37. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014)
    Article Google Scholar
  38. Murukannaiah, P.K., Kalia, A.K., Telangy, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Resolving goal conflicts via argumentation-based analysis of competing hypotheses. In: Proc. RE’15, pp. 156–165 (2015)
  39. Potts, C., Takahashi, K., Anton, A.I.: Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 21–32 (1994)
    Article Google Scholar
  40. Ross, D.T.: Structured analysis (SA): a language for communicating ideas. IEEE TSE 1, 16–34 (1977)
    Google Scholar
  41. Selman, B., Levesque, H.J.: Abductive and default asoning: a computational core (1990)
  42. Tjong, S.F., Berry, D.M.: The design of SREE: a prototype potential ambiguity finder for requirements specifications and lessons learned. In: REFSQ’13, pp. 80–95. Springer (2013)
  43. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
    Book Google Scholar
  44. van Lamsweerde, A.: Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE TSE 26(10), 978–1005 (2000)
    Google Scholar
  45. Van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In: Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–262. IEEE (2001)
  46. van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements enginering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: RE’04), pp. 4–7 (2004)
  47. van Zee, M., Bex, F., Ghanavati, S.: Rationalization of goal models in GRL using formal argumentation. In: Proc. RE’15, pp. 220–225. IEEE Comput. Soc. (2015)
  48. van Zee, M., Marosin, D., Bex, F., Ghanavati, S.: RationalGRL: A framework for rationalizing goal models using argument diagrams. In: Proc. ER’16, pp. 553–560. Springer (2016)
  49. van Zee, M., Bex, F., Ghanavati, S.: Rationalgrl: a framework for argumentation and goal modeling. Argum. Comput. (Preprint) 1–55,(2020)
  50. Westfechtel, B.: Case-based exploration of bidirectional transformations in QVT relations. Softw. Syst. Model. 17(3), 989–1029 (2018)
    Article Google Scholar
  51. Yu, E.: Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Soc. Model. Requir. Eng. 11(2011), 66–87 (2011)
    Google Scholar
  52. Yu, E.S.: An organization modeling framework for information system requirements engineering. In: Proc. Wkshp. Information Technologies and Systems (WITS’93), p. 9 (1993)
  53. Zowghi, D., Offen, R.: A logical framework for modeling and reasoning about the evolution of requirements. pp. 247–257 (1997)

Download references