Handling Inconsistency in Software Requirements

Richa Sharma, K. K. Biswas

Abstract

Software Requirements expressed in the form of natural language are often informal and possibly vague. The need for formal representation of the requirements has been explored and addressed in various forms earlier. Of several recommended approaches, logical representation of requirements has been widely acknowledged to formalize the requirements languages. In this paper, we present courteous logic based representations for software requirements. We report the benefits of courteous logic based representations for handling inconsistencies in software requirements and take into account views of multiple stakeholders and the presuppositions. We show how courteous logic based representations can be used to ensure consistency as well as to uncover presuppositions in the requirements.

References

  1. IEEE Computer Society, 1998. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specification, IEEE Std 830 - 1998(R2009).
  2. Zowghi, D., 2003. On the Interplay Between Consistency, Completeness, and Correctness in Requirements Evolution. In Information and Technology, Vol 45, Issue 14, 2003, pp 993-1009.
  3. Ma, L., Nuseibeh, B., Piwek, P., Roeck, A.D. and Willis, A., 2009. On Presuppositions in Requirements. In Proc International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge, pp.68-73
  4. Tsai, J. J. P., Weigert, T. and Jang, H.,1992. A Hybrid Knowledge Representation as a Basis of Requirements Specifciation and Specification Analysis. In IEEE Transaction on Software Engg, vol. 18, No 12, 1992, pp. 1076-1100.
  5. Gervasi, V. and Zowghi, D., 2005. Reasoning about Inconsistencies in Natural Language Requirements. In ACM Transactions on Software Engg and Methodology, Vol 14, No 3, 2005, pp. 277-330.
  6. Levinson, S. C., 2000. Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.
  7. Sharma, R. and Biswas, K.K. 2011. Using Courteous Logic based representatiosn for Requirements Specifications. In International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge.
  8. Grosof, B.N., 1997. Courteous Logic Programs: prioritized conflict handling for rules. IBM Research Report RC20836, IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Centre.
  9. Grosof, B.N., 2004. Representing E-Commerce Rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol 3, Issue 1, Spring 2004, pp 2-20.
  10. Greenspan, S., Borgida, A. and Mylopoulos, J.,1986. A Requirements Modleing Language and its logic, Information Systems, vol 11, no 1, 1986, pp 9-23.
  11. Stanley, M., 1986. CML: A Knowledge Representation Language with Applications to Requirements Modeling, M.Sc. Thesis, Dept Comp. Sc., University of Troronto.
  12. Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A. and Koubarakis, M.,1990. Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1990.
  13. Tsai, Jeffrey J.-P. and Weigert, T.,1991. HCLIE: a logicbased requirement language for new software engineering paradigms, Software Engineering, vol 6, issue 4, July 1991, pp 137-151.
  14. Zhang, Y. and Zhang W., 2007. Description Logic Representation for Requirement Specification, Proc International Confernce on Computational Science (ICCS 2007), Part II, Springer-Verlag, pp 1147 - 1154.
  15. Borgida, A., Greenspan, S. and Mylopoulos, J., 1985. Knowledge Representation as the basis for Requirements Specifications, Computer, vol 18, no 4, Apr. 1985, pp 82-91..
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Sharma R. and Biswas K. (2012). Handling Inconsistency in Software Requirements . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8565-13-6, pages 95-104. DOI: 10.5220/0003999500950104


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase12,
author={Richa Sharma and K. K. Biswas},
title={Handling Inconsistency in Software Requirements},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2012},
pages={95-104},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003999500950104},
isbn={978-989-8565-13-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - Handling Inconsistency in Software Requirements
SN - 978-989-8565-13-6
AU - Sharma R.
AU - Biswas K.
PY - 2012
SP - 95
EP - 104
DO - 10.5220/0003999500950104