Cugola, G., Nitto, E. D., Fuggetta, A. and Ghezzi, C. A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems, ACM Transactions Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 5, no. 3, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... processes [ACD01, HHM00] while they have only marginally been adopted in the software industry [ACDS02] This has been mainly imputed to the fact that software processes are human intensive and are subject to deviations more than the more stable traditional enginering and administrative processes [CC01, CDF96]. This, in addition to the fact that in the past the software factory model was mainly centralized, gave software engineers and project managers the perception that the adoption of workflow management technologies could only produce overheads in the management of the process without providing real ....

....to the model. In this case, the concrete process model can be duplicated and modified, so new instances of the process can be started according to the new model. Future work is planned to add facilities to the project management tool for managing run time exceptions, deviations and inconsistencies [CC01, CDF96, CCP99]. 4 An example We describe here an example of a portion of a distributed software process and discuss how this is enacted in the GENESIS WfMS. The process definition is graphically depicted in Figure 3. Three types of activities are specified at global level: Architecture Specification: ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems", ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 5, no. 3, 1996, pp. 191-230.

....is another important issue in work ow management system. Unexpected events may happen during work ow execution. Failure is one of the most common but other examples abound (e:g: the mortgage applicant supplied a forged document in his application) Considerable work has been devoted to this issue [18, 45, 43, 21, 24, 48, 42, 58]. There are two common approaches. The rst is to de ne exceptions explicitly in the work ow speci cation. In this approach, the work ow designer has to foresee all the possible failure situations and specify a reaction to each. The problems are that the number of work ow paths may explode, the ....

G. Cugola, E. D. Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191 - 230, July 1996.

....to consider many different forms of inconsistency throughout the development process. So, for example, checking descriptions against consistency rules may reveal stakeholder conflicts [20] divergent goals [25] faults in a running system [15] and deviations from documented development processes [2]. 3. Tolerating Inconsistency Inconsistency is a problem in software engineering if it leads to misunderstandings and errors. However, the problem is not with inconsistency per se, but with inconsistency that remains undetected. In many cases, we may wish to tolerate a known inconsistency. For ....

....tracks it for us, rather than an environment that prohibits it. There may be times during development when tolerating inconsistency is beneficial: Inconsistency may indicate deviations from a process model. The rationale for process modelling is that it facilitates process improvement. Cugola [2] argues that this can be achieved by allowing deviations from the prescribed process, and by providing support for dealing with the resulting inconsistencies. Inconsistency may facilitate flexible collaborative working. Schwanke Kaiser [23] consider the problem of incremental development in ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems", Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3): 191-230, ACM Press, July 1996.

....inconsistency handling solution based on announcing and interleaving proposed changes , while Balzer [2] introduced the notion of pollution markers to flag portions of program code that contain inconsistencies. Inconsistency has also been studied in the context of process modeling. Cugola [7] argues that process improvement can be achieved by allowing deviations from the prescribed process, and by providing support for dealing with the resulting inconsistencies. Tools that provide explicit support for identifying, tracking and resolving inconsistencies during requirements modeling ....

G. Cugola, E. D. Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems". ACM Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191--230, July 1996.

....is another important issue in work ow management system. Unexpected events may happen during work ow execution. Failure is one of the most common but other examples abound (e:g: the mortgage applicant supplied a forged document in his application) Considerable work has been devoted to this issue [19, 41, 39, 21, 25, 42, 38, 52]. There are two common approaches. The rst is to de ne exceptions explicitly in the work ow speci cation. In this approach, the work ow designer has to foresee all the possible failure situations and specify a reaction to each. The problems are that the number of work ow paths may explode, the ....

G. Cugola, E. D. Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191 - 230, July 1996.

....by providing help to resolve such breaches. In practice, due to deadline pressure or for reasons of efficiency, it is difficult to make an implementation fully conform to the intended software architecture. To be able to deal with such situations, we need support for architectural deviations [5]. Tools that check whether a given architecture conforms to certain architectural styles or patterns are also useful. Tools for architectural extraction or reconstruction try to (re)construct the architecture from a certain implementation. These tools can be very helpful in the case of ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta and C. Ghezzi. A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems. 1996.

....in work ow management system. Unexpected events may happen during work ow execution. Failure is one of the most common but other examples abound (e:g: the mortgage applicant supplied a forged document in his application) Considerable work has been devoted to this issue [CCPP99, KD98, KMO98, CNFG96, EL98, LSMK98, KR98, RD98] There are two common approaches. The rst is to de ne exceptions explicitly in the work ow speci cation. In this approach, the work ow designer has to foresee all the possible failure situations and specify a reaction to each. The problems are that the number of work ....

Gianpaolo Cugola, Elisabetta Di Nitto, Alfonso Fuggetta, and Carlo Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191 - 230, July 1996. 38

....and interleaving proposed changes , while Balzer [2] introduces the notion of pollution markers to flag portions of program code that contain inconsistencies which can be circumvented in order to continue development. Inconsistencies may indicate deviations from a process model. Cugola [7] argues that process improvement can be achieved by allowing deviations from the prescribed process, and by providing support for dealing with the resulting inconsistencies. Tools that provide explicit support for identifying, tracking and resolving inconsistencies during requirements modeling ....

G. Cugola, E. D. Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems". ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191-- 230, July 1996.

.... of such inconsistencies may be overideal requirements [Lam95] unanticipated obstacles to the goals specified [Pot95] or assumptions about the environment that are no longer valid [Fic95] Dynamic inconsistencies are somewhat similar to deviations between a running process and its process model [Cug96]. 2. Divergent Requirements On the static inconsistency side, we are investigating a technique for detecting divergence among assertions expressed within different viewpoints; the objective is to derive weakest boundary conditions that make the assertions inconsistent in the logical theory ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta and C. Ghezzi, "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems", ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Vol. 5 No. 3, July 1996, 191-230.

....of exceptions is a fundamental part of organizational processes (Suchman, 1983) In order for workflow system to support these processes they must be able to support the handling of these inconsistencies and adapt to changes over time. Exceptions can result from such sources as inconsistent data (Cugola et al. 1996), divergence of tasks from the underlying workflow model (Bolcer, 1998) unexpected contingencies (Saastamoinen, 1994) and unmodeled changes in the environment (Tolone, 1996) Efforts to evolve, expand, and optimize the workflow process may also be sources of change that must be accommodated by ....

Cugola, G., Di Nitto, E., Fuggetta, A., and Ghezzi, C. (1996): "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems" ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 5(3), ;pp.191-230, 1996.

....and optimization over time. Together, these complimentary approaches provide a foundation on which to build dynamic adaptive workflow processes. Introduction The need for workflows to change and adapt results from a number of causes. Exceptions can result from such sources as inconsistent data [4], divergence of tasks from the underlying workflow model [2] unexpected contingencies [13] and unmodeled changes in the environment [15] Efforts to evolve, expand, and optimize the workflow process may also be sources of change that must be accommodated by the workflow system [1] 11] ....

Cugola, G., Di Nitto, E., Fuggetta, A., and Ghezzi, C. "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems" ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 5(3), ;pp.191-230, 1996.

....consistency of the workflow model and execution data. The other, with roots in CSCW, allows stakeholders to perform arbitrary actions to accomplish their activities but places minimal constraints on the structure of the intermediate and final data artifacts, providing few guarantees of consistency [6]. This section gauges several approaches exhibited by systems along this spectrum. 7.1 The database model Traditional workflow systems are built on top of database systems. Activities are modeled as schema which include values for who (or what role) is responsible for the activity, what tools ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 5(3): 191-230, (July 1996).

....to respond to these departures. One approach was to assume prescriptive models and then, modify them to accommodate real processes. This modification could be achieved in two ways. First the extent of deviations from the prescription that could be allowed was modelled as constraints [Cugola95] Cugola96] Cugola98] Any actual deviation that satisfied the constraints was therefore manageable and the process enactment mechanism could handle it. This way of handling deviations took the prescriptive approach to its logical conclusion : it prescribed the deviations allowed in a prescription. The ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 5, num. 3, July 1996.

.... Agent oriented requirements[177] Processes Goal based design[123] Goal based requirements negotiation[220] Program slicing[106] Goal regression for requirements [215] 266] Schema integration[ 11] Inconsistency dialog[76] Inconsistency reasoning[189] Inconsistency framework[40] Multi agent planning[85] Agent negotiation[238] A Historical Perspective of Requirements Interaction Management 13 1999 William N. Robinson Requirements Interaction Management GSU CIS 99 7 Reasoning about requirements goals has evolved concurrent with the evolution of software development ....

Cugola, G., Di Nitto, E., Guggetta, A., Ghezzi, C., A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems, ACM, Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodolog y , 5 (3), 1996, pp. 191-230.

....(active tasks) may be changed selectively, and the future (planned tasks) should be changed. Updates implied by schema changes will be specified by graph productions. In contrast to automatic approaches developed in the database field, human intervention is essential to control the updates. Unlike [7], we have not yet considered the interaction between a real world process and its enacted model (the latter is represented as an instance level task net, the former is not represented at all) Effectively, their work requires to add another level of modeling (descriptive model of the actual ....

G. Cugola, E. di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191--230, July 1996.

.... attempt to fake conformance to the process definition (for example, by fooling a tool into thinking that a certain task has been performed in order Managing Inconsistent Specifications: Reasoning, Analysis and Action Delta 27 to continue development) Cugola et al. Cugola et al. 1995; Cugola et al. 1996] have addressed exactly this problem in their temporal logic based approach which is used to capture and tolerate some deviations from a process description during execution. Deviations are tolerated as long as they do not affect the correctness of the system (if they do, the incorrect data must ....

Cugola, G., Nitto, E. D., Fuggetta, A., and Ghezzi, C. 1996. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5, 3, 191--230.

....This short position statement outlines how a graph based approach to inconsistency management could look like. Of course, other models of inconsistent information have to be explored as well. However, the model chosen above is quite general and can accommodate the models used in Cugola et al. [2] and Balzer [1] as well. The next open problem is how to handle a large amount of actions possible in any given legal or illegal state. A separation of the entire state space can provide a solution. A potential candidate to for such a separation is the ViewPoints concept ( 3] which provides a ....

Cugola, G., E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi (1996). A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, September 1996

....until some precondition is made to hold. Since this policy is overly restrictive, many developers attempt to fake conformance to the process definition (for example, by fooling a tool into thinking that a certain task has been performed in order to continue development) Cugola et al. CNGM95, CNFG96] have addressed exactly this problem in their temporal logic based approach which is used to capture and tolerate some deviations from a process description during execution. Deviations are tolerated as long as they do not affect the correctness of the system (if they do, the incorrect data must ....

G Cugola, E Di Nitto, A Fuggetta, and C Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191--230, 1996.

....until some precondition is made to hold. Since this policy is overly restrictive, many developers attempt to fake conformance to the process definition (for example, by fooling a tool into thinking that a certain task has been performed in order to continue development) Cugola et al. CNGM95, CNFG96] have addressed exactly this problem in their temporal logic based approach which is used to capture and tolerate some deviations from a process description during execution. Deviations are tolerated as long as they do not affect the correctness of the system (if they do, the incorrect data must ....

G Cugola, E Di Nitto, A Fuggetta, and C Ghezzi. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191--230, 1996.

....the concepts, activities and factors briefly discussed above. The whole area of interference seems to us ripe for reconceptualisation and for a synthesis of significant related work. In this regard our aims closely align with those of an informal group of research teams spanning the work of [6,7,8,9]. We are working on some specific techniques which might form the first components of the toolkit, described below. Reconciliation is a technique which supports the detection, verification and tracking of ontological overlaps. It has two basic stages analysis and revision. It detects ....

Cugola, G., Di Nitto, E., Fuggetta, A. & Ghezzi, C., "A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-centered Systems" ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (to appear, 1996).

....have argued that a strategy to achieve this objective is to accept and tolerate inconsistencies between the human centered process and its process support system, and to provide aids and mechanisms to eliminate these inconsistencies, once the need for reconcile them has been recognized. In [5] we have tried to understand and characterize this problem, by modeling the relationship and properties of these two interacting entities, i.e. the human centered system and its process support system. In this paper, we proceed one step further, by providing the reader with some hints and ....

G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):191--230, July 1996.

No context found.

Cugola, G., Nitto, E. D., Fuggetta, A. and Ghezzi, C. A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems, ACM Transactions Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 5, no. 3, 1996.

No context found.

G. Cugola, E. D. Nitto, A. Fuggetta, C. Ghezzi, A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centred systems, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5 (3) (1996) 191--230.

No context found.

[Cugola 96] Gianpaolo Cugola , Elisabetta Di Nitto , Alfonso Fuggetta , Carlo Ghezzi, A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.5 n.3, p.191-230, July 1996

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC