Reasoning with qualitative preferences to develop optimal component-based systems

To produce an optimal component-based software system for a given application, it is necessary to consider both the required functionality of the system and its stakeholders' preferences over various non-functional properties. We propose a new modular end-to-end framework for component-based system development that combines formal specification and verification of functional requirements with a novel method for representing and reasoning with stakeholders' qualitative preferences over properties of the system. This framework will facilitate the use of formal verification to ensure system correctness while making it easier to identify truly optimal component-based system designs.

[1]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Conditional Importance Networks: A Graphical Language for Representing Ordinal, Monotonic Preferences over Sets of Goods , 2009, IJCAI.

[2]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Dominance Testing via Model Checking , 2010, AAAI.

[3]  Zachary J. Oster,et al.  Automating analysis of qualitative preferences in goal-oriented requirements engineering , 2011, 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011).

[4]  Thomas Risse,et al.  Combining global optimization with local selection for efficient QoS-aware service composition , 2009, WWW '09.

[5]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[6]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Understanding "why" in software process modelling, analysis, and design , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[7]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering , 2000, International Series in Software Engineering.

[8]  Mark Sh. Levin.  Combinatorial Engineering of Decomposable Systems , 1998 .

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

[10]  E. Choo,et al.  Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making , 1999 .

[11]  Zachary J. Oster,et al.  Decomposing the Service Composition Problem , 2010, 2010 Eighth IEEE European Conference on Web Services.

[12]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[13]  Gustavo Alonso,et al.  Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications , 2009 .

[14]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Automatic Service Composition and Synthesis: the Roman Model , 2008, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[15]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[16]  Mark Sh. Levin.  Composite Systems Decisions (Decision Engineering) , 2006 .

[17]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[18]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Background to Qualitative Decision Theory , 1999, AI Mag..

[19]  Zachary J. Oster,et al.  Identifying Optimal Composite Services by Decomposing the Service Composition Problem , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Web Services.

[20]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Model Checking of Qualitative Sensitivity Preferences to Minimize Credential Disclosure , 2012, FACS.

[21]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  Preference Handling - An Introductory Tutorial , 2009, AI Mag..

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