Abstract:
The use of logic in identifying and analysing inconsistency
in requirements from multiple stakeholders has been found to
be effective in a number of studies. Default reasoning is a
theoretically well founded formalism that is especially suited
for supporting the evolution of requirements. However, direct
use of logic in eliciting requirements and in discussing them
with stakeholders poses serious useability problems. In this
paper we explore the integration of natural language parsing
techniques with default reasoning to overcome these difficulties.
We also propose a method for automatically discovering
scenarios that expose inconsistencies in requirements, and
show how to deal with them in a formal manner. These techniques
were implemented and tested in a prototype tool called
CARL.
