Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering

Résultats de recherche: Contribution à un journal/une revueArticle

Résumé

Representation and reasoning about goals of an information system unavoidably involve the transformation of unclear stakeholder requirements into an instance of a goal model. If the requirements engineer does not justify why one clear form of requirements is chosen over others, the subsequent modeling decisions cannot be justified either. If arguments for clarification and modeling decisions are instead explicit, justifiably appropriate instances of goal models can be constructed and additional analyses applied to discover richer sets of requirements. The paper proposes the "Goal Argumentation Method (GAM)" to fulfil three roles: (i) GAM guides argumentation and justification of modeling choices during the construction or critique of goal model instances; (ii) it enables the detection of deficient argumentation within goal model instances; and (iii) it provides practical techniques for the engineer to ensure that requirements appearing both in arguments and in model instance elements are clear.

langue originaleAnglais
Pages (de - à)87-115
Nombre de pages29
journalRequirements Engineering
Volume13
Numéro de publication2
Les DOIs
étatPublié - 1 juin 2008

Empreinte digitale

Requirements engineering
Engineers
Information systems

Citer ceci

@article{2c5c6bfd49524f0d87791e2b26f7a584,
title = "Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering",
abstract = "Representation and reasoning about goals of an information system unavoidably involve the transformation of unclear stakeholder requirements into an instance of a goal model. If the requirements engineer does not justify why one clear form of requirements is chosen over others, the subsequent modeling decisions cannot be justified either. If arguments for clarification and modeling decisions are instead explicit, justifiably appropriate instances of goal models can be constructed and additional analyses applied to discover richer sets of requirements. The paper proposes the {"}Goal Argumentation Method (GAM){"} to fulfil three roles: (i) GAM guides argumentation and justification of modeling choices during the construction or critique of goal model instances; (ii) it enables the detection of deficient argumentation within goal model instances; and (iii) it provides practical techniques for the engineer to ensure that requirements appearing both in arguments and in model instance elements are clear.",
keywords = "Argumentation, Clarification, Goal modeling, Goal-oriented requirements engineering",
author = "Jureta, {Ivan J.} and St{\'e}phane Faulkner and Schobbens, {Pierre Yves}",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00766-007-0056-y",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "87--115",
journal = "Requirements Engineering",
issn = "0947-3602",
publisher = "Springer London",
number = "2",

}

Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering. / Jureta, Ivan J.; Faulkner, Stéphane; Schobbens, Pierre Yves.

Dans: Requirements Engineering, Vol 13, Numéro 2, 01.06.2008, p. 87-115.

Résultats de recherche: Contribution à un journal/une revueArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering

AU - Jureta, Ivan J.

AU - Faulkner, Stéphane

AU - Schobbens, Pierre Yves

PY - 2008/6/1

Y1 - 2008/6/1

N2 - Representation and reasoning about goals of an information system unavoidably involve the transformation of unclear stakeholder requirements into an instance of a goal model. If the requirements engineer does not justify why one clear form of requirements is chosen over others, the subsequent modeling decisions cannot be justified either. If arguments for clarification and modeling decisions are instead explicit, justifiably appropriate instances of goal models can be constructed and additional analyses applied to discover richer sets of requirements. The paper proposes the "Goal Argumentation Method (GAM)" to fulfil three roles: (i) GAM guides argumentation and justification of modeling choices during the construction or critique of goal model instances; (ii) it enables the detection of deficient argumentation within goal model instances; and (iii) it provides practical techniques for the engineer to ensure that requirements appearing both in arguments and in model instance elements are clear.

AB - Representation and reasoning about goals of an information system unavoidably involve the transformation of unclear stakeholder requirements into an instance of a goal model. If the requirements engineer does not justify why one clear form of requirements is chosen over others, the subsequent modeling decisions cannot be justified either. If arguments for clarification and modeling decisions are instead explicit, justifiably appropriate instances of goal models can be constructed and additional analyses applied to discover richer sets of requirements. The paper proposes the "Goal Argumentation Method (GAM)" to fulfil three roles: (i) GAM guides argumentation and justification of modeling choices during the construction or critique of goal model instances; (ii) it enables the detection of deficient argumentation within goal model instances; and (iii) it provides practical techniques for the engineer to ensure that requirements appearing both in arguments and in model instance elements are clear.

KW - Argumentation

KW - Clarification

KW - Goal modeling

KW - Goal-oriented requirements engineering

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44249092790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00766-007-0056-y

DO - 10.1007/s00766-007-0056-y

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 87

EP - 115

JO - Requirements Engineering

JF - Requirements Engineering

SN - 0947-3602

IS - 2

ER -