Advertisement

Managing Software Requirements Changes Based on Negotiation-Style Revision

  • Ke-Dian MuEmail author
  • Weiru Liu
  • Zhi Jin
  • Jun Hong
  • David Bell
Article

Abstract

For any proposed software project, when the software requirements specification has been established, requirements changes may result in not only a modification of the requirements specification but also a series of modifications of all existing artifacts during the development. Then it is necessary to provide effective and flexible requirements changes management. In this paper, we present an approach to managing requirements changes based on Booth's negotiation-style framework for belief revision. Informally, we consider the current requirements specification as a belief set about the system-to-be. The request of requirements change is viewed as new information about the same system-to-be. Then the process of executing the requirements change is a process of revising beliefs about the system-to-be. We design a family of belief negotiation models appropriate for different processes of requirements revision, including the setting of the request of requirements change being fully accepted, the setting of the current requirements specification being fully preserved, and that of the current specification and the request of requirements change reaching a compromise. In particular, the prioritization of requirements plays an important role in reaching an agreement in each belief negotiation model designed in this paper.

Keywords

requirements change non-prioritized belief revision inconsistency handling negotiation 

Supplementary material

11390_2011_187_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (73 kb)
(PDF 73 KB)

References

  1. [1]
    Wiegers K E. Software Requirements, 2nd Ed. Portland: Microsoft Press, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Garcez A S, Russo A, Nuseibeh B, Kramer J. An analysis-revision cycle to evolve requirements specifications. In Proc. the 16th IEEE Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE2001), Coronado, USA, Nov. 26–29, 2001, pp.354-358.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Garcez A S, Russo A, Nuseibeh B, Kramer J. Combining abductive reasoning and inductive learning to evolve requirements specifications. IEE Proceedings of Software, 2003, 150(1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Kakas A C, Kowalski R, Toni F. The Role of Abduction in Logic Programming. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Gabbay Dov M, Hogger C J, Robinson J A (eds.), Volume 5., 1998, pp.235-324.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Mitchell T M. Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Zowghi D, Offen R. A logical framework for modeling and reasoning about the evolution of requirements. In Proc. the 3 rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE1997), Jan. 5–8, 1997, Annapolis, USA, 1997, pp.247-257.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Zowghi D. A requirements engineering process model based on defaults and revisions. In Proc. the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA2000), Greenwich, UK, Sept. 6–8, 2000, pp.966-970.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alchourrón C, GÄardenfors P, Makinson D. On the logic of theory change: Partial meeting contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1985, 50(2): 510–530.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Darwiche A, Pearl J. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 1997, 89(1/2): 1–29.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Delgrande J, Dubois D, Lang J. Iterated revision as priorited merging. In Proc. the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Lake District, UK, Jun. 2–5, 2006, pp.210-220.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Fermé E, Hansson S. Selective revision. Studia Logica, 1999, 63(3): 331–342.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Booth R. A negotiation-style framework for non-prioritised revision. In Proc. the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK2001), Siena, Italy, Jul. 8–10, 2001, pp.137-150.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hansson S. A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis, 1999, 50(2/3): 413–427.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hunter A, Nuseibeh B. Managing inconsistent specification: Reasoning, analysis, and action. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1998, 7(4): 335–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Wiegers K. First things first: Prioritizing requirements. Software Development, 1999, 7(9): 48–53.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Davis A. Just Enough Requirements Management: Where Software Development Meets Marking. New York: Dorset House Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Karlsson J, Ryan K. A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software, 1997, 14 (5): 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Pardee W J. To Satisfy and Delight Your Customer: How to Manage for Customer Value. New York: Dorset House Publishing, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Zowghi D, Gervasi V. On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution. Information and Software Technology, 2003, 45(14): 993–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Gervasi V, Zowghi D. Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodologies, 2005, 14(3): 277–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Benferhat S, Cayrol C, Dobois D, Lang J, Prade H. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proc. the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambèry, France, Aug. 28-Sept. 3, 1993, pp.640-647.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Lehmann D. Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 15(1): 6182.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Jin Y, Thielscher M. Iterated belief revision, revised. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171(1): 1–18.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Mu K, Jin Z. Identifying acceptable common proposals for handling inconsistent software requirements. In Proc. 27th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems (FORTE2007), Tallinn, Estonia, Jun. 27–29, 2007, pp.296-308.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC & Science Press, China 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ke-Dian Mu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Weiru Liu
    • 2
  • Zhi Jin
    • 3
  • Jun Hong
    • 2
  • David Bell
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mathematical SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceQueen’s University BelfastBelfastU.K.
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies (Peking University), Ministry of Education School of Electronics Engineering and Computer SciencePeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations