A belief-theoretic framework for the collaborative development and integration of para-consistent conceptual models

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 707-729

  Bagheri, Ebrahim ^a   Ghorbani, Ali A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Belief theory; Collaborative modeling; Conceptualization; Inconsistency management; Viewpoint integration

Indexed keywords

MERGING; RELIABILITY THEORY;

BELIEF THEORY; COLLABORATIVE MODELING; CONCEPTUALIZATION; INCONSISTENCY MANAGEMENT; VIEWPOINT INTEGRATION;

INTEGRATION;

EID: 63049108292     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.10.012     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Andrade J., Ares J., Garcia R., Pazos J., Rodriguez S., and Silva A. A methodological framework for viewpoint-oriented conceptual modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30 5 (2004) 282-294
2. Bagheri, Ebrahim, 2007. A proposal for taming uncertainty in the collaborative conceptual model development process. Doctoral Symposium, OOPSLA Companion.
3. Bagheri Ebrahim, Ghorbani, Ali A., 2007. On the collaborative development of para-consistent conceptual models. In: The Seventh International Conference on Quality Software.
4. Bagheri, Ebrahim, Ghorbani, Ali A., 2007. A framework for distributed collaborative conceptual model development. In: OOPSLA Companion.
5. Barr M., and Wells Charles. Category Theory for Computing Science (1990), Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA
6. Belnap N.D. A useful four-valued logic. In: Michael Dunn J., and Epstein G. (Eds). Modern Uses of Multiple-valued Logics (1977), Reidel, Dordrecht 8-37
7. Boehm B., and In H. Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Softw. 13 2 (1996) 25-35
8. Bowman H., Derrick J., Linington P., and Steen M. Cross-viewpoint consistency in open distributed processing. Softw. Eng. J. 11 1 (1996) 44-57
9. Clarke S. Extending standard uml with model composition semantics. Sci. Comp. Programm. 44 1 (2002) 71-100
10. Dardenne A., Lamsweerde A.v., and Fickas S. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20 1-2 (1993) 3-50
11. Darke P., and Shanks G. Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: a framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches. Requir. Eng. V1 2 (1996) 88-105
12. Dieste, Oscar, Juristo, Natalia, Moreno, Ana M., Pazos, Juan, Sierra, Almudena, 2001. Conceptual Modelling in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: Concepts, Techniques and Trends. Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (Chapter 6).
13. Dubois D., and Prade H. Properties of measures of information in evidence and possibility theories. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 100 Suppl. (1999) 35-49
14. Easterbrook S. Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl. Acquis. 3 3 (1991) 255-289
15. Easterbrook S. Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. Requir. Eng.: Social Tech. Issues (1994) 41-65
16. Easterbrook S., and Chechik M. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. ICSE'01: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Washington, DC, USA 2001 (2001), IEEE Computer Society 411-420
17. Finkelstein A., Kramer J., Nuseibeh B., Finkelstein L., and Goedicke M. Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 2 1 (1992) 31-57
18. Finkelstein A.C.W., Gabbay D., Hunter A., Kramer J., and Nuseibeh B. Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20 8 (1994) 569-578
19. Fridman Noy N., and Musen M.A. Prompt: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (2000), AAAI Press/The MIT Press 450-455
20. Ghose, Aditya, Lin, Qiuming, 2006. Viewpoints merging via incrementally elicited ranked structures. In: QSIC, pp. 141-150.
21. Gordon T.F., and Karacapilidis N. The zeno argumentation framework. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (1997), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA 10-18
22. Greenspan, S., Feblowitz, M., 1993. Requirements engineering using the sos paradigm. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 260-263.
23. Inagaki T. Interdependence between safety-control policy and multiple-sensor schemes via Dempster-Shafer theory. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 40 2 (1991) 182-188
24. Josang A. A logic for uncertain probabilities. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst. 9 3 (2001) 279-311
25. Josang A. The consensus operator for combining beliefs. Artif. Intell. 141 1 (2002) 157-170
26. Josang, A., Daniel, M., Vannoorenberghe, P., 2003. Strategies for combining conflicting dogmatic beliefs. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, pp. 1133-1140.
27. 2, pp. 13-22.
28. Kulasekere E.C., Premaratne K., Dewasurendra D.A., Shyu, and Bauer P.H. Conditioning and updating evidence. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 36 1 (2004) 75-108
29. Leite J.C.S.P., and Freeman P.A. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17 12 (1991) 1253-1269
30. Lewis J.R. Ibm computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7 1 (1995) 57-78
31. Liu W. Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif. Intell. 170 11 (2006) 909-924
32. Luiz Fiadeiro J., and Maibaum T. Interconnecting formalisms: supporting modularity reuse and incrementality. SIGSOFT'95: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (1995), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA
33. Möller J.U. Towards declarative programming of conceptual models. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Informationssysteme und Künstliche Intelligenz: Modellierung (1992), Springer-Verlag, London, UK 84-94
34. Mylopoulos J., Borgida A., Jarke M., and Koubarakis M. Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8 4 (1990) 325-362
35. Nejati, Shiva, Sabetzadeh, Mehrdad, Chechik, Marsha, Easterbrook, Steve M., Zave, Pamela, 2007. Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: ICSE, pp. 54-64.
36. Nuseibeh B., Kramer J., and Finkelstein A. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20 10 (1994) 760-773
37. Philippe S. Data fusion in the transferable belief model. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Fusion, 2000, FUSION 2000 (2000), IEEE Press
38. Pope, S., Josang, A., 2005. Analysis of competing hypotheses using subjective logic. In: 10th CCRTS: The Future of Command and Control, pp. 1-30.
39. Pottinger, Rachel, Bernstein, Philip A., 2003. Merging models based on given correspondences. In: VLDB, pp. 826-873.
40. Rahm E., and Bernstein P.A. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. Int. J. Very Large Data Bases 10 4 (2001) 334-350
41. Richards, D., Menzies, T., 1997. Extending knowledge engineering to requirements engineering from multiple perspectives. In: Proceedings of 3rd Australian Knowledge Acquisition Workshop.
42. Robinson W.N., and Pawlowski S.D. Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25 6 (1999) 816-835
43. Rogova, G.L., Nimier, V., 2004. Reliability in information fusion: literature survey. In: International Conference on Information Fusion, pp. 1158-1165.
44. Sabetzadeh M., and Easterbrook S. View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir. Eng. 11 3 (2006) 174-193
45. Sandri S.A., Dubois D., and Kalfsbeek H.W. Elicitation assessment, and pooling of expert judgments using possibility theory. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 3 3 (1995) 313-335
46. Sentz, K., Ferson, S., 2002. Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory. Tech. Rep., Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 2002-0835.
47. Shafer G. Probability judgment in artificial intelligence and expert systems. Stat. Sci. 2 1 (1987) 3-44
48. Shvaiko P., and Euzenat J. A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Lecture Notes Comp. Sci. 3730 (2005) 146
49. Sommerville I., Sawyer P., and principles V.:. problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann. Softw. Eng. V3 (1997) 101-130
50. Spanoudakis G., and Constantopoulos P. Integrating specifications: a similarity reasoning approach. Automated Softw. Eng. V2 4 (1995) 311-342
51. Spanoudakis G., and Zisman A. Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. Handbook Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 1 (2001)
52. Stephanou H.E., and Lu S.-Y. Measuring consensus effectiveness by a generalized entropy criterion. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 10 4 (1988) 544-554
53. Yager R.R. On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf. Sci. 41 2 (1987) 93-137
54. Zadeh L. Review of Shafers mathematical theory of evidence. Artif. Intell. Mag. 5 (1984) 81-83
55. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy Sets (1996), World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, USA pp. 19-34
56. Zave P., and Jackson M. Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6 1 (1997) 1-30
57. Zhang Lianwen. Representation, Independence, and Combination of Evidence in the Dempster-Shafer Theory (1994), John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA pp. 51-69