Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the practicality of viewpoint-based requirements engineering

  • Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Validation
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover PRICAI’98: Topics in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 1998)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1531))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Requirements engineering is often characterised as the management of conflicts between the viewpoints of different stakeholders. This approach is only useful if there is some benefit in moving a specification from one viewpoint to another. In this study, the value of different viewpoints was assessed using a range of different models (ranging from correct to very incorrect), different fanouts, different amounts of data available from the domain, and different temporal linking policies. In all those models, no significant difference was observed between viewpoints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. H. Bossel. Modeling and Simulations. A.K. Peters Ltd, 1994. ISBN 1-56881-033-4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T. Bylander, D. Allemang, M.C. M.C. Tanner, and J.R. Josephson. The Computational Complexity of Abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 49:25–60, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. D.J. Clancy and B.K. Kuipers. Model Decomposition and Simulation: A component based qualitative simulation algorithm. In AAAI-97, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. DeKleer. An Assumption-Based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28:163–196, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Doyle. A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence, 12:231–272, 1979.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Easterbrook. Elicitation of Requirements from Multiple Perspectives. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, University of London, 1991. Available from http://research.ivv.nasa.gov/~steve/papers/index. html.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Easterbrook. Handling conflicts between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation, Knowledge Acquisition, 3:255–289, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. B. Feldman, P. Compton, and G. Smythe. Hypothesis Testing: an Appropriate Task for Knowledge-Based Systems. In 4th AAAI-Sponsored Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop Banff, Canada, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibe. Inconsistency Handling In Multi-Perspective Specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(8):569–578, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. H.N. Gabow, S.N. Maheshwari, and L. Osterweil. On Two Problems in the Generation of Program Test Paths. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg, SE-2:227–231, 1976.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Hunter and B. Nuseibeh. Analysing Inconsistent Specifications. In International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pages 78–86, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A.C. Kakas, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. The Role of Abduction in Logic Programming. In C.J. Hogger D.M. Gabbay and J.A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 5, pages 235–324. Oxford University Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. Kuipers. Qualitative Simulation. Artificial Intelligence, 29:229–338, 1986.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. T.J. Menzies. Principles for Generalised Testing of Knowledge Bases. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales. Avaliable from http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~timm/pub/docs/95thesis.ps.gz, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. T.J. Menzies. On the Practicality of Abductive Validation. In ECAI ’96, 1996. Available from http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~timm/pub/docs/96abvalid.ps.gz.

    Google Scholar 

  16. T.J. Menzies. Applications of Abduction: Knowledge Level Modeling. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45:305–355, September, 1996. Available from http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~timm/pub/docs/96abkl1.ps.gz.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. T.J. Menzies and P. Compton. Applications of Abduction: Hypothesis Testing of Neuroendocrinological Qualitative Compartmental Models. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 10:145–175, 1997. Available from http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~timm/pub/docs/96aim.ps.gz

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. B. Nuseibeh. To Be and Not to Be: On Managing Inconsistency in Software Development. In Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-8), pages 164–169. IEEE CS Press., 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. O’Rourke. Working Notes of the 1990 Spring Symposium on Automated Abduction. Technical Report 90–32, University of California. Irvine, CA., 1990. September 27, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. Plexousakis. Semantical and Ontological Considerations in Telos: a Language for Knowledge Representation. Computational Intelligence, 9(1), February 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. D. Preece. Principles and Practice in Verifying Rule-based Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 7:115–141, 2 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. R. Reiter. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. C. Rich and Y.A. Feldman. Seven Layers of Knowledge Represeentation and Reasoning in Support of Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(6):451–469, June 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. B. Selman and H.J. Levesque. Abductive and Default Reasoning: a Computational Core. In AAAI ’90, pages 343–348, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AI Department Computer Science and Engineering, University of NSW, Australia

    Tim Menzies

  2. Air Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Australia

    Sam Waugh

Authors
  1. Tim Menzies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam Waugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Hing-Yan Lee Hiroshi Motoda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Menzies, T., Waugh, S. (1998). On the practicality of viewpoint-based requirements engineering. In: Lee, HY., Motoda, H. (eds) PRICAI’98: Topics in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1531. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0095262

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0095262

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65271-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49461-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation