Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language

In this article, we introduce the application of rigorous analysis procedures to goal models to provide several benefits beyond the initial act of modeling. Such analysis can allow modelers to assess the satisfaction of goals, facilitate evaluation of high-level design alternatives, help analysts decide on the high-level requirements and design of the system, test the sanity of a model, and support communication and learning. The analysis of goal models can be done in very different ways depending on the nature of the model and the purpose of the analysis. In our work, we use the Goal-oriented Requirement Language (GRL), which is part of the User Requirements Notation (URN). URN, a new Recommendation of the International Telecommunications Union, provides the first standard goal-oriented language. Using GRL, we develop an approach to analysis that can be done by evaluating qualitative or quantitative satisfaction levels of the actors and intentional elements (e.g., goals and tasks) composing the model. Initial satisfaction levels for some of the intentional elements are provided in a strategy and then propagated to the other intentional elements of the model through the various links that connect them. The results allow for an assessment of the relative effectiveness of design alternatives at the requirements level. Although no specific propagation algorithm is imposed in the URN standard, different criteria for defining evaluation mechanisms are described. We provide three algorithms (quantitative, qualitative, and hybrid) as examples, which satisfy the constraints imposed by the standard. These algorithms have been implemented in the open-source jUCMNav tool, an Eclipse-based editor for URN models. The algorithms are presented and compared with the help of a telecommunication system example. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Comparing GRL and KAOS using the UEML Approach , 2007, IESA.

[2]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Goal-oriented requirements enginering: a roundtrip from research to practice [enginering read engineering] , 2004, Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2004..

[3]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  A UML Profile for Goal-Oriented Modeling , 2009, SDL Forum.

[4]  Sepideh Ghanavati A compliance framework for business processes based on URN , 2007 .

[5]  Xavier Franch,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of i*Agent-Oriented Modelling Techniques , 2006, SEKE.

[6]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements engineering: from craft to discipline , 2008, SIGSOFT '08/FSE-16.

[7]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis , 1999, CACM.

[8]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Introduction to the User Requirements Notation: learning by example , 2003, Comput. Networks.

[9]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering , 1997, Proceedings of ISRE '97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[10]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the Tropos methodology , 2005, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[11]  Lin Liu,et al.  Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modelling approach , 2004, Inf. Syst..

[12]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Extending the User Requirements Notation with Aspect-Oriented Concepts , 2009, SDL Forum.

[13]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  COMPARING GOAL-MODELLING TOOLS WITH THE RE-TOOL EVALUATION APPROACH ∗ , 2006 .

[14]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Towards Integrated Tool Support for the User Requirements Notation , 2006, SAM.

[15]  Philippe Massonet,et al.  GRAIL/KAOS: An Environment for Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering , 1997, Proceedings of the (19th) International Conference on Software Engineering.

[16]  R. Braek,et al.  Next generation service engineering , 2008, 2008 First ITU-T Kaleidoscope Academic Conference - Innovations in NGN: Future Network and Services.

[17]  Naveed Ikram,et al.  Goal Oriented Requirement Engineering: A Critical Study of Techniques , 2006, 2006 13th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'06).

[18]  Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite,et al.  On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

[19]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering , 2004, SIGSOFT '04/FSE-12.

[20]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Qualitative, Interactive, Backward Analysis of i* Models , 2008, iStar.

[21]  Lin Liu,et al.  Analyzing trust in technology strategies , 2006, PST.

[22]  Carme Quer,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of i*-Based Agent-Oriented Modeling Languages , 2005, SEKE.

[23]  Alireza Pourshahid,et al.  Business process management with the user requirements notation , 2009, Electron. Commer. Res..

[24]  Jean-Francois Roy,et al.  Requirement engineering with URN: Integrating goals and scenarios , 2007 .

[25]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Business Process Modeling with URN , 2005, Int. J. E Bus. Res..

[26]  Xavier Franch,et al.  On the Quantitative Analysis of Agent-Oriented Models , 2006, CAiSE.

[27]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications , 2009 .