Beyond Goal Representation: Checking Goal-Satisfaction by Temporal Reasoning with Business Processes

  • Choong-ho Yi
  • Paul Johannesson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1626)


Most formal approaches to goals proposed within information systems engineering, view goals from the requirements engineering perspective, i.e. for producing future software. Typically, these approaches begin with extracting goals from informal reality and end with representing them in some formal language, leaving the questions arising afterwards unanswered: How can we check whether goals are achieved or not in real business processes? If the goals are not satisfied, why and what to do? This paper presents a formal approach to representing and reasoning with goals using a first order many sorted temporal logic, where goals are expressed in terms of actions and static and temporal constraints; the above questions are answered by model theoretic formal reasoning with goals and business processes.


  1. [1]
    P. Assenova and P. Johannesson. First Order Action Logic-an Approach for Modelling the Communication Process between Agents. 1st Intl. Workshop on Communication Modeling–The Language/Action Perspective, Eds. F. Dignum, J. Dietz, E. Verharen and H. Weigand, electronic Workshops in Computing, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Dardenne, Van Lamsweerde and S. Fickas. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, pp. 3–50, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. Dubois. A Logic of Action for Supporting Goal-Oriented Elaborations of Requirements. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 14,No. 3, pp. 160–168, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Krogstie and G. Sindre. Utilizing deontic Operators in Information Systems Specification. Requirements Engineering 1:210–237, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke and M. Koubarakis. Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol 8,No. 4, pp. 325–362, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Erik Sandewall. Features and Fluents, A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems, Oxford University Press, 1994Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Choong-ho Yi. PhD thesis manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Yu and J. Mylopoulos. Using Goals, Rules and Methods to Support Reasoning in Business Process Reengineering. Proc. of the 27th Annual Hawaii Intl. Conf. on Systems Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 234–243, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Choong-ho Yi
    • 1
  • Paul Johannesson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm University ElectrumKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations