Skip to main content

Early Identification of Problem Interactions: A Tool-Supported Approach

  • Conference paper
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5512))

Abstract

[Context and motivation] The principle of “divide and conquer” suggests that complex software problems should be decomposed into simpler problems, and those problems should be solved before considering how they can be composed. The eventual composition may fail if solutions to simpler problems interact in unexpected ways. [Question/problem] Given descriptions of individual problems, early identification of situations where composition might fail remains an outstanding issue. [Principal ideas/results] In this paper, we present a tool-supported approach for early identification of all possible interactions between problems, where the composition cannot be achieved fully. Our tool, called the OpenPF, (i) provides a simple diagramming editor for drawing problem diagrams and describing them using the Event Calculus, (ii) structures the Event Calculus formulae of individual problem diagrams for the abduction procedure, and (iii) communicates with an off-the-shelf abductive reasoner in the background and relates the results of the abduction procedure to the problem diagrams. The theory and the tool framework proposed are illustrated with an interaction problem from a smart home application. [Contribution] This tool highlights, at an early stage, the parts in problem diagrams that will interact when composed together.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. Parnas, D.L., Lawford, M.: The role of inspection in software quality assurance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(8), 674–676 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson, M.: Problem Frames: Analyzing and structuring software development problems. ACM Press & Addison Wesley (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D., Volkov, V.: Requirements interaction management. ACM Computing Surveys 35(2), 132–190 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jureta, I., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: Revisiting the core ontology and problem in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 71–80. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, Y., McIlraith, S.A., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: An automated approach to monitoring and diagnosing requirements. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 293–302. ACM, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shanahan, M.: Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1055–1060. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Denecker, M., Schreye, D.D.: Sldnfa: an abductive procedure for normal abductive programs. In: Proc. of the International Joint Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 686–700. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Russo, A., Miller, R., Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J.: An abductive approach for analysing event-based requirements specifications. In: Stuckey, P.J. (ed.) ICLP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2401, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Laney, R., Tun, T.T., Jackson, M., Nuseibeh, B.: Composing features by managing inconsistent requirements. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Feature Interactions in Software and Communication Systems (ICFI 2007), pp. 141–156 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shanahan, M.P.: The event calculus explained. In: Woolridge, M.J., Veloso, M. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS, vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller, R., Shanahan, M.: The event calculus in classical logic - alternative axiomatisations. Journal of Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mueller, E.T.: Commonsense Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Decreasoner, http://decreasoner.sourceforge.net/

  14. Kolberg, M., Magill, E., Marples, D., Tsang, S.: Feature interactions in services for internet personal appliances. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2002), vol. 4, pp. 2613–2618 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Classen, A., Laney, R., Tun, T.T., Heymans, P., Hubaux, A.: Using the event calculus to reason about problem diagrams. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Applications and Advances of Problem Frames, pp. 74–77. ACM, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 203–208 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Relsat, http://code.google.com/p/relsat/

  18. Russo, A., Nuseibeh, B.: On the use of logical abduction in software engineering. In: Chang, S.K. (ed.) Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. World Scientific, Singapore (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lamsweerde, A.v., Letier, E., Darimont, R.: Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(11), 908–926 (1998), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/32.730542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nentwich, C., Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: xlinkit: a consistency checking and smart link generation service. ACM Trans. Interet Technol. 2(2), 151–185 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the uml. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 381–390. ACM Press, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Seater, R., Jackson, D.: Requirement progression in problem frames applied to a proton therapy system. In: Proceedings of RE 2006, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 166–175. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tun, T.T., Yu, Y., Laney, R., Nuseibeh, B. (2009). Early Identification of Problem Interactions: A Tool-Supported Approach. In: Glinz, M., Heymans, P. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5512. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02050-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02050-6_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02049-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02050-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics