Software requirements: analysis and specification
Software requirements: analysis and specification
Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation
Requirements engineering
Requirements engineering: a roadmap
Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering
Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering
Annals of Software Engineering
Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour
RE '01 Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering
Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)
Handling non-canonical software requirements based on Annotated Predicate Calculus
Knowledge and Information Systems
An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Elements of Argumentation
Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering
Requirements Engineering
Composing requirements specifications from multiple prioritized sources
Requirements Engineering
Journal of Systems and Software
Knowledge and Information Systems
A model for the integration of prioritized knowledge bases through subjective belief games
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans
Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The process of handling inconsistencies in software requirements is an important and challenging task. Most often in cases where multiple stakeholders interact with the requirement analysts, inconsistent, discrepant and conflicting information is gathered that needs to be understood and interpreted properly. Recent research has suggested that despite the fact that inconsistencies are not desirable by nature, they can be tolerated in order to better understand the nature of the problem domain and the stakeholders' line of thought. With this in mind, we propose an argumentative approach towards handling inconsistent requirement specifications. In our semi-formal approach, we build on Dung's abstract argumentation framework and represent requirement statements as arguments. This way we are able to model the interaction of the requirement statements in terms of their inconsistencies and also provide a decision support process for the resolution of inconsistencies. We discuss our approach in detail through a widely used case study and introduce our Eclipse plugin tool supporting the proposed work.