Inconsistency-Based Strategy for Clarifying Vague Software Requirements

  • Kedian Mu
  • Zhi Jin
  • Ruqian Lu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3809)


It seems to be inevitable to confront vague information about customer’s needs during the software requirements stage. It may be desirable to record and clarify the vague information to avoid missing real requirements. In this paper, we provide an inconsistency-based strategy to handle vague information in the framework of Annotated Predicate Calculus. This strategy permits the stakeholder to describe the different vague information using statements with different levels of belief, where each level of belief is determined by the degree of vagueness. By checking consistency of the union of vague requirements and clear requirements, we then heighten the level of belief in uncontroversial vague requirements. We also lower the levels of belief in requirements involved in undesirable inferences and leave them to be articulated in some following stage. To support this, Annotated Predicate Calculus is used to represent the requirements specification. In particular, we present a special belief semilattice, which defines truth values appropriate for representing the strength of analyst’s belief in the truth of requirements statements.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Spanoudakis, G., Finkelstein, A.: Reconciling requirements: a method for managing interference, inconsistency and conflict. Annals of Software Engineering 3, 433–457 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In: Chang, S.K. (ed.) Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 329–380. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunter, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Managing inconsistent specification. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 7, 335–367 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: Handling obstacles in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26, 978–1005 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman, H., Steen, M., Boiten, E., Derrick, J.: A formal framework for viewpoint consistency. Formal Methods in System Design 21, 111–166 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: 2nd international workshop on living with inconsistency. Software Engineering Notes 26, 76–78 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: Harrold, M., Schafer, W., Muller, H. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001), Toronto, Canada, pp. 411–420 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S.P.: Efficient multiple-valued model-checking using lattice representations. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 21–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kifer, M., Lozinskii, E.L.: A logic for reasoning with inconsistency. Journal of Automated Reasoning 9, 179–215 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kedian Mu
    • 1
  • Zhi Jin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ruqian Lu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computing TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingP.R. China
  2. 2.Academy of Mathematics and System SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations