Reasoning about requirements evolution using clustered belief revision

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3171, Issue , 2004, Pages 41-51

  Rodrigues, Odinaldo ^a   Garcez, Artur D'Avila ^b   Russo, Alessandra ^c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

BELIEF REVISION; FORMAL FRAMEWORK; IMPACT ANALYSIS; POTENTIAL CHANGE; REQUIREMENTS EVOLUTION; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS; TRANSIENT STAGE;

SPECIFICATIONS;

EID: 35048894885     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-28645-5_5     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. C. A. Alchourron and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria, 48:14-37, 1982.
2. S. Benferhat and L. Garcia, Handling Locally Stratified Inconsistent Knowledge Bases, Studia Logica, 70:77-104, 2002.
3. N. C. A. da Costa, On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15(4):497-510, 1974.
4. D. Duffy et al., A Framework for Requirements Analysis Using Automated Reasoning, CAiSE95, LNCS 932, Springer, 68-81, 1995.
5. S. Easterbrook and B. Nuseibeh, Using ViewPoints for Inconsistency Management. In Software Engineering Journal, 11(1): 31-43, BCS/IEE Press, January 1996.
6. A. Finkelstein et. al, Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(8), 569-578, 1994.
7. Peter Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1988.
8. P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. TARK II, pages 83-95. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1988.
9. C. Heitmeyer and R. Bharadwaj, Applying the SCR Requirements Method to the Light Control Case Study, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol.6(7), 2000.
10. M. R. Huth and M. D. Ryan. Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
11. B Nebel. Syntax based approaches to belief revision. Belief Revision, 52-88, 1992.
12. B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer and A. Finkelstein, A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10): 760-773, October 1994.
13. S. Queins et al., The Light Control Case Study: Problem Description. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Special Issue on Requirements Engineering: the Light Control Case Study, Vol.G(7), 2000.
14. Odinaldo Rodrigues. A methodology for iterated information change. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, January, 1998.
15. O. Rodrigues, Structured Clusters: A Framework to Reason with Contradictory Interests, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(1):69-97, 2003.
16. M. D. Ryan. Default in Specification, IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE93), 266-272, San Diego, California, January 1993.
17. G. Spanoudakis and A. Zisman. Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues, Handbook of Softawre Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, (ed.) S.K. Chang, pp. 329-380, 2001.
18. D. Zowghi and R. Offen, A Logical Framework for Modeling and Reasoning about the Evolution of Requirements, Proc. 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering RE'97, Annapolis, USA, January 1997.