Revisiting the Core Ontology and Problem in Requirements Engineering (0811.4364v1)

Abstract: In their seminal paper in the ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Zave and Jackson established a core ontology for Requirements Engineering (RE) and used it to formulate the "requirements problem", thereby defining what it means to successfully complete RE. Given that stakeholders of the system-to-be communicate the information needed to perform RE, we show that Zave and Jackson's ontology is incomplete. It does not cover all types of basic concerns that the stakeholders communicate. These include beliefs, desires, intentions, and attitudes. In response, we propose a core ontology that covers these concerns and is grounded in sound conceptual foundations resting on a foundational ontology. The new core ontology for RE leads to a new formulation of the requirements problem that extends Zave and Jackson's formulation. We thereby establish new standards for what minimum information should be represented in RE languages and new criteria for determining whether RE has been successfully completed.

• The paper proposes a comprehensive core ontology for Requirements Engineering that integrates stakeholder beliefs, desires, and attitudes, extending previous work.
• It reformulates the core requirements problem using non-monotonic consequence relations to optimize the satisfaction of needs based on stakeholder attitudes and preferences.
• This revised framework provides a new benchmark for RE languages and methods, enabling more nuanced requirements elicitation and system design.

Revisiting the Core Ontology and Problem in Requirements Engineering

The paper by Ivan J. Jureta, John Mylopoulos, and Stéphane Faulkner addresses fundamental aspects of Requirements Engineering (RE) by challenging and extending the seminal work of Zave and Jackson in defining a core ontology and the requirements problem. Zave and Jackson's ontology, although influential, primarily focused on optative and indicative properties without considering the full spectrum of stakeholder inputs such as beliefs, desires, intentions, and attitudes. Recognizing this gap, Jureta and colleagues propose a comprehensive core ontology that integrates these elements, grounded in a foundational ontology using DOLCE to redefine the requirements problem.

Key Contributions and Definitions

The authors introduce a sophisticated ontology for RE, deriving concepts from speech-act theory to classify stakeholder communications into categories such as assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, declarations, and representative declaratives. This facilitates the capturing of beliefs, desires, intentions, and attitudes—concepts often overlooked by previous approaches.

• Domain Assumptions: Defined through assertive, declarative, or representative declarative acts, these assumptions are considered beliefs that should not be violated by the system or its environment.
• Goals and Quality Constraints: Distinctions are made between functional requirements (goals) and nonfunctional requirements (quality constraints), emphasizing the verifiability of quality constraints by requiring well-defined quality spaces.
• Softgoals: Cover abstract nonfunctional requirements characterized by ill-defined quality spaces, such as convenience or security. Softgoals are satisficed rather than satisfied, indicating the need for approximation using quality constraints.
• Plans: Derived from commissive acts, plans encompass specifications that stakeholders and systems must commit to satisfy requirements within the constraints of domain assumptions.
• Attitudes and Relationships: Attitudes, conveyed through expressive acts, provide evaluations that lead to optionality and preference relationships among elements. Justified approximation links softgoals to quality constraints, ensuring rigor in goal satisficing and system evaluations.

Novel Formulation of the Requirements Problem

The paper revises the requirements problem traditionally framed by Zave and Jackson. The new formulation incorporates non-monotonic consequence relations to account for practical realities where complete theories are elusive and requirements evolve. It shifts focus from merely satisfying compulsory requirements to optimizing the satisfaction of both compulsory and optional requirements while factoring in stakeholders' attitudes. This enhanced framing seeks a specification that maximizes desirable outcomes based on preference orders and justified quality approximation.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

The comprehensive ontology provided by Jureta et al. sets a new benchmark for the information that RE languages must represent and establishes criteria beyond the classical dichotomy of functional versus nonfunctional requirements. By recognizing the role of attitudes and providing mechanisms to approximate softgoals through quality constraints, the paper paves the way for more nuanced and effective requirements elicitation and negotiation processes.

Practically, integrating these insights could lead to better stakeholder alignment and system designs that genuinely reflect communicated desires and preferences. Theoretical implications involve refining tools and methodologies to accommodate the nuanced ontology and reasoning about attitudes and preferences, contributing to more robust and adaptable frameworks in RE.

Overall, the paper significantly enriches the discourse in Requirements Engineering by providing an extended ontology that captures the comprehensive spectrum of stakeholder communications and revises the foundational requirements problem to better suit real-world complexities. These contributions are poised to influence both academic research directions and practical applications within the field.