On the Challenge of Engineering Socio-technical Systems

  • José Luiz Fiadeiro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5380)


One of the main challenges raised by software-intensive systems resides in the fact that their complexity derives not so much from their size but the number and nature of the interactions that characterise their behaviour. In this paper, we discuss one of the aspects that contribute to this kind of complexity - that, more and more, people are involved, not as users, but as integral players of such systems - which requires research that can lead to new methods and techniques for engineering what are called ‘socio-technical systems’.


Multiagent System Soft Constraint Deontic Logic Social Component Problem Frame 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrahams, A., Eyers, D., Bacon, J.: An asynchronous rule-based approach for business process automation using obligations. In: Proc. 2002 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Rule-based programming, pp. 93–103. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A Formal basis for architectural connectors. ACM TOSEM 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrade, L.F., Fiadeiro, J.L.: Architecture-based evolution of software systems. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 148–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbuceanu, M., Gray, T., Mankovski, S.: Coordinating with obligations. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on autonomous agents, pp. 62–69. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barroca, L., Fiadeiro, J.L., Jackson, M., Laney, R., Nuseibeh, B.: Evolving problem frames: a case for coordination. In: de Nicola, R., Meredith, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2004. LNCS, vol. 2949, pp. 5–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binder, R.V.: Testing Object-Oriented Systems: Models, Patterns, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 44(2), 201–236 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bolloju, N.: Improving the quality of business object models using collaboration patterns. In: CACM, vol. 47, pp. 81–86 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G., Montanari, U., Pugliese, R., Tuosto, E.: A basic calculus for modelling service level agreements. In: Jacquet, J.-M., Picco, G.P. (eds.) COORDINATION 2005. LNCS, vol. 3454, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dustdar, S.: Caramba – a process-aware collaboration system supporting ad-hoc and collaborative processes in virtual teams. In: Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 15(1), pp. 45–66 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dustdar, S., Gall, H.: Architectural concerns in distributed and mobile collaborative systems. Journal of Systems Architecture 49(10-11), 457–473 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esteva, M., Padget, J., Sierra, C.: Formalizing a language for institutions and norms. In: Meyer, J.-J., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 348–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiadeiro, J.L.: Modelling for software’s social complexity. IEEE Computer 25(1), 34–39 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiadeiro, J.L., Lopes, A., Wermelinger, M.: A mathematical semantics for architectural connectors. In: Backhouse, R., Gibbons, J. (eds.) Generic Programming. LNCS, vol. 2793, pp. 190–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garlan, D., Cheng, S.-W., Huang, A.-C., Schmerl, B., Steenkiste, P.: Rainbow: architecture based self adaptation with reusable infrastructure. IEEE Computer 37(10), 46–54 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science (1985)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackson, M.: Software Requirements and Specifications: A lexicon of practice, principles and prejudices. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames: Analysing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the charactertisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Meyer, J.J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Normative System Specification. Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.J.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75(1), 63–92 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCarty, L.: Permissions and obligations. In: IJCAI 1983, pp. 287–294 (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyer, J.-J., Wieringa, R. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minsky, M., Lockman, A.: Ensuring integrity by adding obligations to privileges. In: Proc. 8th IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 92–102 (1985)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Padmanabhan, V., Governatori, G., Sadiq, S., Colomb, R., Rotolo, A.: Process modelling: the deontic way. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling, vol. 53, pp. 75–84 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perry, D., Wolf, A.: Foundations for the study of software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 17(4), 40–52 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rapanotti, L., Hall, J., Nuseibeh, B., Jackson, M.: Architecture-driven problem decomposition. In: Proc. 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2004), pp. 80–89. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sergot, M.: Normative positions. In: MacNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) New studies in deontic logic and computer science, pp. 289–308. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sergot, M.J.: Modelling unreliable and untrustworthy agent behaviour. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., Jankowski, A., Skowron, A., Szczuka, M. (eds.) Monitoring, Security, and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems, pp. 161–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    von Wright, G.: Norm and Action. Routledge and Kegan Paul (1963)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wieringa, R., Meyer, J., Weigand, H.: Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In: Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 157–189 (1989)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wirsing, M., et al.: Semantic-based development of service-oriented systems. In: Najn, E., et al. (ed.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 24–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Luiz Fiadeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations