Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Using ViewPoints for inconsistency management

Using ViewPoints for inconsistency management

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Add to cart
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)
Add to cart

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
Software Engineering Journal — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

© The Institution of Electrical Engineers
Published
Errata or comment

Large-scale software development is an evolutionary process. In an evolving specification, multiple development participants often hold multiple inconsistent views on the system being developed, and considerable effort is spent handling recurrent inconsistencies. Detecting and resolving inconsistencies is only part of the problem; a resolved inconsistency might not stay resolved as a specification evolves. Frameworks in which inconsistency is tolerated help by allowing resolution to be delayed. However, the evolution of a specification may affect both resolved and unresolved inconsistencies. A framework is presented and elaborated in which software development knowledge is partitioned into multiple views called ViewPoints. Inconsistencies between ViewPoints are managed by explicitly representing relationships between them, and recording both resolved and unresolved inconsistencies. It is assumed that ViewPoints will often be inconsistent, and so a complete work record is kept, detailing any inconsistencies that have been detected and what actions, if any, have been taken to resolve them. The work record is then used to reason about the effects of subsequent changes to ViewPoints, without constraining the development process. The paper demonstrates how inconsistency management is used as a tool for requirements elicitation and how ViewPoints provide a vehicle for achieving this. Inconsistency is used as a stimulus for eliciting missing information and capturing user-defined relationships that arise between elements of an evolving specification.

References

    1. 1)
      • Nuseibeh, B.: `Computer-aided inconsistency management in software development', 95/4, Technical Report, 1994.
    2. 2)
      • Narayanaswamy, K., Goldman, N.: `‘Lazy’ consistency:a basis for cooperative software development', Proc.Int. Conf. on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'92), 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, p. 257–264.
    3. 3)
      • Nuseibeh, B.: `A multi-perspective framework for method integration', October 1994, PhD Thesis, Imperial College, Department of Computing, London, UK.
    4. 4)
      • J.C.S.P. Leite , P.A. Freeman . Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. Trans. Soft. Eng. , 12 , 1253 - 1269
    5. 5)
      • G. Kotonya , I. Sommerville . Viewpoints for requirements definition. Softw. Eng. J. , 6 , 375 - 387
    6. 6)
      • A. Finkelstein , D. Gabbay , A. Hunter , J. Kramer , B. Nuseibeh . Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. Trans. , 8 , 569 - 578
    7. 7)
      • S.M. Easterbrook , E.E. Beck , J.S. Goodlet , L. Plowman , M. Sharples , C.C. Wood , S.M. Easterbrook . (1993) A survey of empirical studies of conflict, CSCW: cooperation or conflict?.
    8. 8)
      • Pohl, K.: `A process centred requirements engineering environment', October 1994, PhD Thesis, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
    9. 9)
      • Alford, M.: `Attacking requirements complexity using a separation of concerns', Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering, Colorado Springs, 1994, Colorado, USA, p. 2–5.
    10. 10)
      • Easterbrook, S.M., Nuseibeh, B.A.: `Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification', Second IEEE Symp. on Requirements Engineering, 1995, York UK, p. 48–55.
    11. 11)
      • Mullery, G.: `CORE — a method for controlled requirements expression', Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE-4), 1979, p. 126–135.
    12. 12)
      • B. Nuseibeh , J. Kramer , A. Finkelstein . A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. Trans. Softw. Eng. , 10 , 760 - 773
    13. 13)
      • P. Zave . Feature interaction and formal specifications in telecommunications. IEEE Computer , 8 , 20 - 30
    14. 14)
      • A. Finkelstein , J. Kramer , B. Nuseibeh , L. Finkelstein , M. Goedicke . Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. , 1 , 31 - 58
    15. 15)
      • D. Harel . Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Progr. , 231 - 274
    16. 16)
      • S. Easterbrook , A. Finkelstein , J. Kramer , B. Nuseibeh . Coordinating distributed viewpoints: the anatomy of a consistency check. Concurrent Eng. Res. AppL , 3 , 209 - 222
    17. 17)
      • P. Zave , M. Jackson . Conjunction as composition. Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. , 4 , 379 - 411
    18. 18)
      • M. Ainsworth , A.H. Cruickshank , L.G. Groves , P.J.L. Walus . Viewpoint specification and Z. Inf. Softw. Technol. , 1
    19. 19)
      • P. Besnard , A. Hunter . (1995) Quasi-classical logic: nontrivializable classical reasoning from inconsistent information, Symbolic and quantitative approaches to uncertainty.
    20. 20)
      • C. Ghezzi , M. Jazayeri , D. Mandriou . (1991) , Fundamentals of software engineering.
    21. 21)
      • Greenspan, S., Feblowitz, M.: `Requirements engineering using the SOS paradigm', Proc. Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering (RE '93), 1993, San Diego, California, USA, p. 260–263.
    22. 22)
      • Easterbrook, S.: `Domain modelling with hierarchies of alternative viewpoints', Proc. Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering (RE '93), 1993, San Diego, California, USA, p. 65–72.
    23. 23)
      • D.T. Ross , K.E. Schoman . Structured analysis for requirements definition. Trans. Softw. Eng. , 1 , 6 - 15
    24. 24)
      • Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, A.: `ViewPoints: a vehicle for method and tool integration', Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE '92), 1992, Montreal, Canada, p. 50–60.
    25. 25)
      • Gabbay, D., Hunter, A.: `Making inconsisteny respectable: a logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning. Part 1 — a position paper', Proc. Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence Research '91, 1991, Springer-Verlag, p. 19–32.
    26. 26)
      • A. Finkelstein , J. Kramer , B. Nuseibeh . (1994) , Software process modelling and technology.
    27. 27)
      • Balzer, R.: `Tolerating inconsistency', Proc. 13th Int. Conf.on Software Engineering (ICSE-13), 1991, Austin, Texas, USA, p. 158–165.
    28. 28)
      • Schwanke, R.W., Kaiser, G.E.: `Living with inconsistency in large systems', Proc. Int.Workshop on Software Version and Configuration Control, 1988, Grassau Austin, Germany, p. 98–118.
    29. 29)
      • Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J.: `Finegrain process modelling', Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-7), 1993, Redondo Beach California, USA, p. 42–46.
    30. 30)
      • Niskier, C., Maibaum, T.S.E., Schwabe, D.: `A look through prisma: towards pluralistic knowledge-based environments for software specification acquisition', Proc.Fifth IEEE Int. Workshop on Software Specification and Design, 1989, Pittsburg Pennsylvania, USA.
    31. 31)
      • S. Easterbrook . Resolving conflicts between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl. Acquisition , 255 - 289
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/sej.1996.0004
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/sej.1996.0004
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Errata
An Erratum has been published for this content:
Erratum: Using ViewPoints for inconsistency management
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address