Handling Obstacles in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering

By Axel van Lamsweerde, Emmanuel Letier. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2000

717 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Software

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ca07869eccccb5fc07f32f2877ff45ac2a39c38

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Software

Citations in the corpus

Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models (2004, methodology): “• applying formal refinement patterns – notably, the “milestone”, “decomposition-by-case”, “resolve lack of monitorability” and “resolve lack of controllability” patterns [12, 24] and obstruction patterns [22].”
Formal specification: a roadmap (2000, methodology): “• to check specific forms of specification consistency/completeness efficiently [Heim96, Heit96]; • to generate high-level exceptions and conflict preconditions that may make the specification unsatisfiable [Lam98b, Lam2K ]; • to generate higher-level specifications such as invariants or conditions”
Research Directions in Requirements Engineering (2007, background): “Other analyses look for anomalies, such as unknown interactions among requirements [25, 79, 143], possible obstacles to requirements satisfaction [114, 175], or missing assumptions [12].”
Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour (2001, methodology): “Compared with standard fault-tree analysis [Lev95], obstacle analysis is goal-oriented, formal, and produces obstacle trees that are provably complete with respect to what is known about the domain [ Lam00a ].”
O-MaSE: a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems (2010, background): “The typical approach to modelling goals is AND/OR decomposition (van Lamsweerde and Letier, 2000).”
Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering (2004, methodology): “Obstacles can be generated and resolved systematically [17].”
DAG-based attack and defense modeling: Don't miss the forest for the attack trees (2013, methodology): “Possible resolutions tactics, inspired by solutions proposed for analysis of non-functional requirements in software engineering, are described in [295] and [293].”
Addressing privacy requirements in system design: the PriS method (2008, methodology): “A number of requirement engineering methodologies have been proposed for managing security issues during system design including NFR [15, 16], Tropos [17‐19], KAOS [ 20 ], i *[ 21], RBAC [22], M-N framework [23], GBRAM [24, 25].”