Download:
|
by Steve Easterbrook, Marsha Chechik
In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~chechik/pubs/icse01.ps
Add To MetaCart
Abstract:
During requirements elicitation, different stakeholders often hold different (and incompatible) views of how the proposed system should behave, resulting in inconsistencies between their descriptions. Consensus may not be needed for every detail, but it can be hard to determine whether a particular disagreement affects the critical properties of the system. Existing viewpoints-based frameworks support detection and resolutionof inconsistencies, but do not support reasoning about the properties of inconsistent models. In this paper, we describe the bel framework for merging and reasoning about multiple, inconsistent state machine models. bel permits the analyst to choose how to combine information from the multiple viewpoints, where each viewpoint has an underlying multi-valued logic. The different values of our logics typically represent different levels of agreement. We have developed a multi-valued model checker, chek, that allows us to check the merged model against temporal properties expressed in CTL. chek determines a truth value for each property, effectively ascertaining the level of agreement for the property. The resulting framework can be used as an exploration tool to support requirements negotiation, by determining what properties are preserved for various combinations of inconsistent viewpoints.
Citations
|
1170
|
Symbolic Model Checking
– McMillan
- 1993
|
|
1030
|
Automatic verification of finite-state con-current systems using temporal logic specifications
– Clarke, Emerson, et al.
- 2001
|
|
226
|
A useful four-valued logic
– Belnap
- 1977
|
|
170
|
J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification
– Dwyer, Avrunin, et al.
- 1999
|
|
165
|
Inconsistency Handling in Multi-Perspective Specifications”, (to appear in
– Finkelstein, Gabbay, et al.
- 1993
|
|
133
|
State-based Model Checking of Event-Driven System Requirements
– Atlee, Gannon
- 1993
|
|
95
|
Tolerating Inconsistency
– Balzer
- 1991
|
|
92
|
Using ViewPoints for Inconsistency Management
– Easterbrook, Nuseibeh
- 1996
|
|
90
|
Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering
– Lamsweerde, Darimont, et al.
- 1998
|
|
71
|
Managing Inconsistent Specifications: Reasoning, Analysis and Action
– Hunter, Nuseibeh
- 1998
|
|
65
|
Feature Interactions and Formal Specifications in Telecommunications
– Zave
- 1993
|
|
58
|
Lazy’ Consistency: A Basis for Cooperative Software Development
– Narayanaswamy, Goldman
- 1992
|
|
39
|
Living with Inconsistency in Large Systems
– Schwanke, Kaiser
|
|
36
|
A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems
– Cugola, Nitto, et al.
- 1996
|
|
34
|
Paraconsistent logic
– Priest, Tanaka
- 2004
|
|
31
|
Mugridge, ‘‘Inconsistency Management for Multiple-View Software Development Environments
– Grundy, Hosking, et al.
- 1998
|
|
27
|
Model-Checking over Multi-valued Logics
– Chechik, Easterbrook, et al.
- 2001
|
|
24
|
Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors
– Robinson, Pawlowski
- 1999
|
|
23
|
Many-Valued Logics
– Bolc, Borowik
- 1992
|
|
17
|
Paraconsistent logics
– HUNTER
- 1998
|
|
17
|
An Empirical Investigation of Multiple Viewpoint Reasoning
– Menzies, Easterbrook, et al.
- 1999
|