Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188) (1999)
June 7, 1999 to June 11, 1999
Tim Menzies , NASA/WVU Software Research Lab
Sam Waugh , Defence Science & Technology Organisation
Bashar Nuseibeh , Imperial College, London
Steve Easterbrook , Institute for Software Research
Multiple viewpoints are often used in Requirements Engineering to facilitate traceability to stakeholders, to structure the requirements process, and to provide richer modelling by incorporating multiple conflicting descriptions. In the latter case, the need to reason with inconsistent models introduces considerable extra complexity. This paper describes an empirical study of the utility of multiple world reasoning (using abduction) for domain modelling. In the study we used a range of different models (ranging from correct to very incorrect), different fanouts, different amounts of data available from the domain, and different modelling primitives for representing time. In the experiments there was no significant change in the expressive power of models that incorporate multiple conflicting viewpoints. Whilst this does not negate the advantages of viewpoints during requirements elicitation, it does suggest some limits to the utility of viewpoints during requirements modelling.
Tim Menzies, Sam Waugh, Bashar Nuseibeh, Steve Easterbrook, "An Empirical Investigation of Multiple Viewpoint Reasoning in Requirements Engineering", Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188), vol. 00, no. , pp. 100, 1999, doi:10.1109/ISRE.1999.777990