Skip to main content

Reasoning About Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

  • Conference paper
Advances in Artificial Intelligence – SBIA 2004 (SBIA 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3171))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. We argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.A., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48, 14–37 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Benferhat, S., Garcia, L.: Handling Locally Stratified Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. Studia Logica 70, 77–104 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. da Costa, N.C.A.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15(4), 497–510 (1974)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Duffy, D., et al.: A Framework for Requirements Analysis Using Automated Reasoning. In: Iivari, J., Rossi, M., Lyytinen, K. (eds.) CAiSE 1995. LNCS, vol. 932, pp. 68–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Easterbrook, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using View Points for Inconsistency Management. Software Engineering Journal 11(1), 31–43 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Finkelstein, A., et al.: Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(8), 569–578 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. TARK II, pp. 83–95. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heitmeyer, C., Bharadwaj, R.: Applying the SCR Requirements Method to the Light Control Case Study. Journal of Universal Computer Science 6(7) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Huth, M.R., Ryan, M.D.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Nebel, B.: Syntax based approaches to belief revision. Belief Revision, 52–88 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(10), 760–773 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Queins, S., et al.: The Light Control Case Study: Problem Description. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Special Issue on Requirements Engineering: the Light Control Case Study 6(7) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rodrigues, O.: A methodology for iterated information change. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College (January 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rodrigues, O.: Structured Clusters: A Framework to Reason with Contradictory Interests. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(1), 69–97 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan, M.D.: Default in Specification. In: IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1993), San Diego, California, January 1993, pp. 266–272 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues. In: Chang, S.K. (ed.) Handbook of Softawre Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 329–380 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zowghi, D., Offen, R.: A Logical Framework for Modeling and Reasoning about the Evolution of Requirements. In: Proc. 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering RE 1997, Annapolis, USA (January 1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rodrigues, O., Garcez, A.d., Russo, A. (2004). Reasoning About Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence – SBIA 2004. SBIA 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3171. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28645-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28645-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-23237-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-28645-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics