Maintaining Motivation Models (in BMM) in the Context of a (WSDL-S) Service Landscape

  • Konstantin Hoesch-Klohe
  • Aditya K. Ghose
  • Hoa Khanh Dam
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7636)


The ever-changing business context requires organisations to constantly adapt their motivation and service representations. While there has been work focusing on the relation between the motivation- and service level, very little work has been done in providing machinery for handling (propagating) changes at the motivation level and identifying the resulting impact on the service landscape. In this paper, we propose a novel framework which addresses this problem.


Service Level Motivation Model Motivation Level Default Theory Root Vertex 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Jokhio, M.S.: Goal-based testing of semantic web services. In: ASE, pp. 707–711 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling and Reasoning about Service-Oriented Applications via Goals and Commitments. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 113–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu, Q., Tosic, V., Bannerman, P.L.: Support for the Business Motivation Model in the WS-Policy4MASC Language and MiniZnMASC Middleware. In: Kappel, G., Maamar, Z., Motahari-Nezhad, H.R. (eds.) ICSOC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7084, pp. 265–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrikopoulos, V., Benbernou, S., Papazoglou, M.: On the evolution of services. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hibner, A., Zielinski, K.: Semantic-based dynamic service composition and adaptation. In: 2007 IEEE Congress on Services, pp. 213–220 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zowghi, D., Ghose, A.K., Peppas, P.: A Framework for Reasoning About Requirements Evolution. In: Foo, N.Y., Göbel, R. (eds.) PRICAI 1996. LNCS, vol. 1114, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ernst, N., Borgida, A., Jureta, I.: Finding incremental solutions for evolving requirements. In: RE (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darimont, R., Van Lamsweerde, A.: Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21(6) (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuxman, A., Liu, L., Mylopoulos, J., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Specifying and analyzing early requirements in Tropos. Requirements Engineering 9(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallo, G., Longo, G., Pallottino, S., Nguyen, S.: Directed hypergraphs and applications. Discrete Applied Mathematics 42(2-3), 177–201 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2) (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantin Hoesch-Klohe
    • 1
  • Aditya K. Ghose
    • 1
  • Hoa Khanh Dam
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision Systems Lab (DSL), School of Computer Science and Software EngineeringUniversity of WollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations