Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements

Gervasi, V; Zowghi, D

Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements

Gervasi, V Zowghi, D

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2005, 14 (3), pp. 277 - 330
Issue Date:: 2005-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2005000900.pdf		4.19 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Gervasi, V	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Zowghi, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-0155	en_US
dc.date.issued	2005-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2005, 14 (3), pp. 277 - 330	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1049-331X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/4023
dc.description.abstract	The use of logic in identifying and analyzing inconsistency in requirements from multiple stakeholders has been found to be effective in a number of studies. Nonmonotonic logic is a theoretically well-founded formalism that is especially suited for supporting the evolution of requirements. However, direct use of logic for expressing requirements and discussing them with stakeholders poses serious usability problems, since in most cases stakeholders cannot be expected to be fluent with formal logic. In this article, we explore the integration of natural language parsing techniques with default reasoning to overcome these difficulties. We also propose a method for automatically discovering inconsistencies in the requirements from multiple stakeholders, using both theoremproving and model-checking techniques, and show how to deal with them in a formal manner. These techniques were implemented and tested in a prototype tool called CARL. The effectiveness of the techniques and of the tool are illustrated by a classic example involving conflicting requirements from multiple stakeholders. © 2005 ACM.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1145/1072997.1072999	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Software Engineering	en_US
dc.title	Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	14	en_US
utslib.for	0806 Information Systems	en_US
utslib.for	0803 Computer Software	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)/Graduate Research School
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HCTD - Human Centred Technology Design
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - STEM Education Futures
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	3	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	14	en_US

Abstract:

The use of logic in identifying and analyzing inconsistency in requirements from multiple stakeholders has been found to be effective in a number of studies. Nonmonotonic logic is a theoretically well-founded formalism that is especially suited for supporting the evolution of requirements. However, direct use of logic for expressing requirements and discussing them with stakeholders poses serious usability problems, since in most cases stakeholders cannot be expected to be fluent with formal logic. In this article, we explore the integration of natural language parsing techniques with default reasoning to overcome these difficulties. We also propose a method for automatically discovering inconsistencies in the requirements from multiple stakeholders, using both theoremproving and model-checking techniques, and show how to deal with them in a formal manner. These techniques were implemented and tested in a prototype tool called CARL. The effectiveness of the techniques and of the tool are illustrated by a classic example involving conflicting requirements from multiple stakeholders. © 2005 ACM.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/4023