A Merging-Based Approach to Handling Inconsistency in Locally Prioritized Software Requirements
نویسندگان
چکیده
It has been widely recognized that the relative priority of requirements can help developers to resolve inconsistencies and make some necessary trade-off decisions. However, for most distributed development such as Viewpoints-based approaches, different stakeholders may assign different levels of priority to the same shared requirements statement from their own perspectives. The disagreement in the local priorities assigned to the same shared requirements statement often puts developers into a dilemma during inconsistency handling process. As a solution to this problem, we present a merging-based approach to handling inconsistency in the Viewpoints framework in this paper. In the Viewpoints framework, each viewpoint is a requirements collection with local prioritization. Informally, we transform such a requirements collection with local prioritization into a stratified knowledge base. Moreover, the relationship between viewpoints is considered as integrity constraints. By merging these stratified knowledge bases, we then construct a merged knowledge base with a global prioritization, which may be viewed as an overall belief in these viewpoints. Finally, proposals for inconsistency handling are derived from the merged result. The global prioritization as well as the local prioritization may be used to argue these proposals and to help developers make a reasonable trade-off decision on handling inconsistency.
منابع مشابه
Handling Inconsistency In Distributed Software Requirements Specifications Based On Prioritized Merging
Developing a desirable framework for handling inconsistencies in software requirements specifications is a challenging problem. It has been widely recognized that the relative priority of requirements can help developers to make some necessary trade-off decisions for resolving conflicts. Address for correspondence: Kedian Mu, School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, P...
متن کاملAn Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case
An important problem in the management of knowledge-based systems is the handling of inconsistency. Inconsistency may appear because the knowledge may come from different sources of information. To solve this problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category merges the different bases into a unique base, and the second category of approaches, such as argumentation, accepts...
متن کاملA Blame-Based Approach to Generating Proposals for Handling Inconsistency in Software Requirements
Inconsistency has been considered one of the main classes of defects in software requirements specification. Various logic-based techniques have been proposed to manage inconsistencies in requirements engineering. However, identifying an appropriate proposal for resolving inconsistencies in software requirements is still a challenging problem. This paper proposes a logic-based approach to gener...
متن کاملMerging requirements from a set of ranked agents
Handling inconsistency is an increasingly important issue in data and knowledge engineering. A number of logic-based proposals have been made for handling aspects of inconsistency in beliefs (where we use beliefs as a general term to encompass representations of the real world) including belief revision theory, truth-maintenance, argumentation systems, and knowledgebase merging. In contrast, th...
متن کاملIdentifying Acceptable Common Proposals for Handling Inconsistent Software Requirements
The requirements specifications of complex systems are increasingly developed in a distributed fashion. It makes inconsistency management necessary during the requirements stage. However, identifying appropriate inconsistency handling proposals is still an important challenge. In particular, for inconsistencies involving many different stakeholders with different concerns, it is difficult to re...
متن کامل