Utilizing deontic operators in information systems specification

Requirements Engineering

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 210-237

  Krogstie, John ^a   Sindre, Guttorm ^b  

^a Andersen Consulting   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Deontic operators; Goal modeling; Requirements specification; Rule modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 0342975792     PISSN: 09473602     EISSN: 1432010X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF01587101     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Gustafsson MR, Karlsson T, Bubenko JA Jr. A declarative approach to conceptual information modelling. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Sluart AA (eds). Information systems design methodologies: A comparative review. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp 93-142
2. Hagelstein J. A declarative approach to information systems requirements. Knowledge Based Syst 1988; 1(4): 211-220
3. Olivé A. A comparison of the operational and deductive approaches to conceptual information systems modelling. In: Kugler HJ (ed). Information processing '86. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986
4. van Assche F, Layzell P, Loucopoulos P, Speltincx G. Information systems development: A rule-based approach. Knowledge Based Syst 1988; 1(4) 227-234
5. Loucopoulos P, McBrien P, Schumacker F, Theodoulidis B, Kopanas V, Wangler B. Integrating database technology, rule-based systems and temporal reasoning for effective information systems: The TEMPORA paradigm. J Inform Syst 1991; 1: 129-152
6. Seltveit AH. Complexity reduction in information systems modelling. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1994
7. Sartor G. The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law. In: Proceedings of third international conference on artificial intelligence and law, June 1991, 155-164
8. Wieringa RJ, Meyer J-JC, Weigand H. Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. Data Knowledge Eng 1989; 4: 157-189
9. Li X. What's so bad about rule-based programming? IEEE Software 1991; 8(5): 103, 105
10. Philip CG. Guidelines on improving the maintainability and consultation of rule-based expert systems. Expert Syst Applic 1993; 6(2): 169-179
11. Watson I, Basden A, Brandon P. The client-centered approach: Expert systems maintenance. Expert Systems 1992; 9(4): 189-196
12. Yoon Y, Guimaraes T. Selecting expert systems development techniques. Inform Manage 1993; 24(4): 209-223
13. McBrien P, Niezette M, Pantazis D, et al. A rule language to capture and model business policy specifications. In Andersen et al. [96], pp 307-318
14. Von Wright GH. Deontic logic. Mind 1951; 60: 1-15
15. Thomason RH. Deontic logic as founded in tense logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed). Deontic logic: Introductory and systematic readings. Reidel, 1971, pp 165-176
16. Brown MA, Carmo J (eds). Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. D EON 96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11-13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin
17. Horty JF. Combining agency and obligation. In: Brown and Carmo [16], pp 98-122
18. Meyer J-JC. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. J Formal Logic 1988; 29(1): 109-136
19. Alchourrón CA and Makinson D. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed). New studies in deontic logic. Reidel, 1981, pp 125-148
20. Royakkers L, Dignum F. Defeasible reasoning with legal rules. In: Brown and Carmo [16], pp 174-193
21. Artosi A, Governatori G, Sartor G. Towards a computational treatment of deontic defeasibility. In: Brown and Carmo [16], pp 27-46
22. Brown MA. A logic of comparative obligation. In: Jones and Sergot [34], pp 37-55
23. Prakken, H. Reasoning with normative hierarchies. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]
24. Tan Y-H, van der Torre LWN. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In: Brown and Carmo [16], pp 216-232
25. Asher N, Bonevac D. Prima facie obligations. In: Jones and Sergot [34], pp 19-36
26. Horty JF. Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]
27. Prakken H. Two approaches to defeasible reasoning. In: Jones and Sergot [34], pp 281-295
28. Jones AJI. Towards a formal theory of defeasible deontic conditionals. Ann Math Arti Intell 1993
29. Jones AJI, Pörn I. "Ought" and "must". Synthese 1986; 66: 89-93
30. McNamara P. Doing well enough: Toward a logic of common sense morality. In: Jones and Sergot [34], pp 165-197
31. Krogh C, Herrestad H. Getting personal: Some notes on the relationship between personal and impersonal obligation. In: Brown and Carmo [16], pp 134-153
32. Stamper R. LEGOL: Modelling legal rules by computers. In: Niblett B (ed). Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980, pp 45-71
33. Jones AJI, Sergot M. On the characterisation of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. In: Meyer J-JC, Wieringa RJ (eds). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Wiley, Chichester, 1993
34. Jones AJI, Sergot M (eds). DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6-8 January 1994. TANO
35. Meyer J-JC, Wieringa RJ (eds). DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11-13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
36. Tempora final review. Technical report, Tempora Consortium, 1994
37. The Sweden Post case study. Technical report, TEMPORA Consortium, 1991
38. McBrien P, Seltveit AH, Wangler B. An entity-relationship model extended to describe historical information. In: Proceedings of CISMOD'92, Bangalore, India, July 1992
39. Gulla JA, Lindland OI, Willumsen G. PPP: An integrated CASE environment. In: Andersen et al. [96], pp 194-221
40. Krogstie J, McBrien P, Owens R, Seltveit AH. Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches. In: Andersen et al. [96], pp 319-335
41. McBrien P, Seltveit AH. Coupling process models and business rules. In: Sølvberg A, Krogstie J, Seltveit AH (eds). Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 WC on information systems for decentralized organizations (ISDO'95), Trondheim, Norway, 21-23 August 1995. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 201-217
42. Seltveit AH. An abstraction-based rule approach to large-scale information systems development. In: Rolland et al. [97], pp 328-351
43. Krogstie J, Sindre G. Extending a temporal rule language with deontic operators. In: Proceedings from the 6th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE'94), 21-23 June 1994. IEEE, Washington, DC, pp 21-23
44. Jones AJI, Pörn I. Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese 1985; 65: 275-290
45. Maibaum TSE. Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications. In: Meyer JJC, Wieringa RJ (eds). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative systems specifications. Wiley, Chichester, 1993, pp 141-202
46. Antón AL, McCracken WM, Potts C. Goal decomposition and scenario analysis in business process reengineering. In: Wijers G, Brinkkemper S, Wasserman T (eds). Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'94), Utrecht, Netherlands, 6-10 June 1994. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 94-104
47. Conklin J, Begeman MJ. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988; 6(4): 303-331
48. Ramesh, B, Edwards M. Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1992; 18(6): 498-510
49. Rittel H. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftsøkonomen 1972; 34(8)
50. Krogstie J. Goal-oriented modeling of information systems. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on computing and information (ICCI'95), Peterborough, Canada, 5-8 July 1995
51. Krogstie J. Conceptual modeling for computerized information systems support in organizations. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 21 November 1995
52. Auramäki E, Hirschheim R, Lyytinen K. Modelling offices throughout discourse analysis: The SAMPO approach. Comput J 1992; 35(4): 342-352
53. Dietz J. Integrating management of human and computer resources in task processing organizations: A conceptual view. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98], pp 723-733
54. Dubois E, Du Bois P, Petit M. ALBERT: An agent-oriented language for building and elicitating requirements for real-time systems. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98], Vol 4, 713-722
55. Reenskaug T, Andersen EP, Berre AJ et al. OORASS: Seamless support for the creation and maintenance of object oriented systems. Object Oriented Program October 1992
56. Krogstie J, Carlsen S. An integrated modelling approach for process support. In: Nunamaker JF, Sprague RH (eds). Proceedings of the thirtieth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'30), Vol 2, 1997, pp 189-198
57. Davis AM. Software requirements analysis and specification. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990
58. Kopanas V. The rule execution algorithm. Technical report E2469/UMIST/4.1/11, UMIST, Manchester UK, 6 May 1990
59. Lo TL. The house of quality and service management. CMC Trans 1994; Fall: 39-46
60. Zultner RE. Quality function deployment (QFD) for software: Structured requirements exploration. In: Schulmeyer GG, McManus JI (eds). Total quality management for software. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992
61. Jones AJI. Deontic logic and legal knowledge representation. Ratio Juris, 1990
62. Feather MS. An implementation of bounded obligations. In: Proceedings of the eighth knowledge-based software engineering conference (KBSE'93), Chicago, USA, 20-23 September 1993, pp 114-122
63. Kent SJH, Maibaum TSE, Quirk WJ. Formally specifying temporal constraints and error recovery. In: Proceedings of the IEE international symposium on requirements engineering, San Diego, USA, 4-6 January 1993, pp 208-215
64. Minsky NH, Lockman A. Extending authorization by adding obligations to permissions. Technical report, Computer Science Laboratory, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Canada, January 1985
65. Krogstie J, Lindland OI, Sindre G. Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In: livari J, Lyytinen K, Rossi M (eds). Proceedings of the 7th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'95), Jyväskylä, Finland, 12-16 June 1995. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 82-95
66. TEMPORA Consortium. Tempora Project Manual, August 1992
67. Costello RJ, Liu D-B. Metrics for requirements engineering. J Syst Software 1995; 29(1): 39-63
68. Vestli M, Nordbø I, Sølvberg A. Modeling control in rule-based systems. IEEE Software 1994; March: pp 77-81
69. Sølvberg A, Kung CH. Activity modelling and behaviour modelling. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds). Information systems design methodologies: Improving the practice. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986
70. Tsalgatidou A, Loucopoulos P. An object-oriented rule-based approach to the dynamic modelling of information systems. In: Sol HG, van Hee KM (eds). Dynamic modelling of information systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam 1991
71. Ming LW. Object-oriented rule based approach to enhance software maintenance: An implementation. In: Software engineering: New technologies and business payoffs, Proceedings of the SCS Silver Jubilee Conference. Singapore Computer Society, October 1992
72. Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J. Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98], pp 234-243
73. Carmo J, Jones A. Deontic database constraints and the characterisation of recovery. In: Jones and Sergot [34], pp 56-85
74. Lee RM. Bureaucraties and deontic systems. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988; 6(2) 87-108
75. Allen LE, Saxon CS. A-Hohfeld: A language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35] pp 52-71
76. Allen LE. From the fundamental legal conceptions of Hohfeld to legal relations: Refining the enrichment of solely deontic legal relations. In Brown and Carmo [16], pp 1-26
77. Herrestad H, Krogh C. Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In: Proceedings from the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, University of Maryland, USA, 21-24 May 1995. ACM Press, 1995, pp 210-218
78. McCarty LT. A language for legal discourse: Basic features. In: The second international conference on artificial intelligence and Law, 25-28 June 1989, pp 180-189
79. Lee RM. A logic model for electronic contracting. Decision Support Syst 1988; 4: 27-44
80. Bieber P, Cuppens F. Computer security policies and deontic logic. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35], pp 51-71
81. Dignum F, Kemme T, Kreuzen W, Weigand R, van de Riet RP. Constraint modelling using a conceptual prototyping language. Data Knowledge Eng 1987; (2): 213-254
82. Willars H. Handbok i ABS-metoden (in Swedish). Plandata Strategi, 1988
83. Pohl K, Haumer P. Hydra: A hypertext model for structuring informal requirements representations. In: Peters P, Pohl K (eds). REFSQ'95, 1995
84. Feather MS. Requirement reconnoitering at the juncture of domain and instance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'93), San Diego, USA. 4-6 January 1993, pp 73-76
85. Chung L. Dealing with security requirements during the development of information systems. In: Rolland et al. [97], pp 234-251
86. Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B. Representing and using non-functional requirements: A process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1992; 18(6): 483-497
87. Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A. Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Garlan D (ed). Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT'96), San Francisco, USA, 16-18 October 1996, pp 47-65
88. Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM. Bridging the requirements gap: Policies, goals and domains. In: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on software specification and design (IWSSD-7), Redondo Beach, USA, 6-7 December 1993, pp 52-55
89. Easterbrook, S. Domain modelling with hierarchies of alternative viewpoints. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE'93), San Diego, USA, 4-6 January 1993, pp 65-72
90. Chandrasekaran B, Goel AK, Iwasaki Y. Functional representation as design rationale. IEEE Comput 1993; 26(1): 48-56
91. Gotel OCZ, Finkelstein A. An analysis of the requirements tracability problem. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE'94), Colorado Springs, USA, 18-22 April 1994. IEEE, Washington, DC, pp 94-101
92. Moffett JD. Distributed systems management policies: An application for deontic logic? In: Meyer and Wieringa [35], pp 281-293
93. Wieringa RJ, Meyer J-JC. Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35], pp 15-41
94. Ryu YU. Conditional deontic logic augmented with defeasible reasoning. Data Knowledge Eng 1995; 16(1): pp 73-91
95. Lindland OI, Krogstie J. Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping. In: Rolland et al. [97], pp 165-183
96. Andersen R, Bubenko JA Jr, Sølvberg A (eds). Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'91), Trondheim, Norway, May 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
97. Rolland C, Bodart F, Cauvet C (eds). Proceedings of the 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France, 8-11 June 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
98. Nunamaker IF, Sprague RH (eds). Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICCS'27), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4-7 January 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC
99. Schumacker F. Towards an execution mechanism for TEMPORA. Technical Report E2469/ULG/T3.2/1/2, ULG, Liége, Belgium, 15 March 1990