article

Free access

Managing inconsistent specifications: reasoning, analysis, and action

Editor: Axel van Lamsweerde Authors:

Anthony Hunter,

Bashar NuseibehAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Volume 7, Issue 4

Pages 335 - 367

https://doi.org/10.1145/292182.292187

Published: 01 October 1998 Publication History

Abstract

In previous work, we advocated continued development of specifications in the presence of inconsistency. To support this, we used classical logic to represent partial specifications and to identify inconsistencies between them. We now present an adaptation of classical logic, which we term quasi-classical (QC) logic, that allows continued reasoning in the presence of inconsistency. The adaptation is a weakening of classical logic that prohibits all trivial derivations, but still allows all resolvants of the assumptions to be derived. Furthermore, the connectives behave in a classical manner. We then present a development called labeled QC logic that records and tracks assumptions used in reasoning. This facilitates a logical analysis of inconsistent information. We discuss that application of labeled QC logic in the analysis of multiperspective specifications. Such specifications are developed by multiple particpants who hold overlapping, often inconsistent, views of the systems they are developing.

References

[1]

ATKINSON, W. AND CUNNINGHAM, J. 1991. Proving properties of safety-critical systems. BCS/IEE Software Engineering Journal 6, 2, 41-50.

[2]

BALZER, R. 1991. Tolerating inconsistency. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-13) (1991), pp. 158-165. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[3]

BARAL, C., KRAUS, S., MINKER, J., AND SUBRAHMANIAN, V. 1992. Combining knowledge bases consisting of first order theories. Computational Intelligence 8, 45-71.

[4]

BEARNE, M. 1996. Hypermedia visualization for system requirements in a collaborative distributive environment. Technical Report TN3491, Philips Research Labs, Redhill, Surrey.

[5]

BELNAP, N. 1977. A useful four-valued logic. In G. Epstein Ed., Modern Uses of Multiple- Valued Logic (1977), pp. 8-37. Reidel.

[6]

BENFERHAT, S., DUBOIS, D., AND PRADE, g. 1993. Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In Proceedings of Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1993). Morgan Kaufmann.

[7]

BESNARD, P. 1991. Paraconsistent logic approach to knowledge representation. In M. de Glas M and D. G. D. Eds., Proceedings of the First World Conference on Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (1991), pp. 107-114. Angkor.

[8]

BESNARD, P. AND HUNTER, A. 1995. Quasi-classical logic: Non-trivializable classical reasoning from inconsistent information. In C. Froidevaux and J. Kohlas Eds., Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty, Volume 946 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1995), pp. 44-51.

[9]

BIBEL, W. 1993. Deduction: Automated logic. Academic Press.

[10]

BORGIDA, A. 1985. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. Transactions on Database Systems 10, 4, 565-603.

[11]

BOURLEY, C., CAFERRA, R., AND PELTIER, N. 1994. A method for building models automatically: Experiments with an extension of otter. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computer-Aided Deduction (CADE-12), Volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1994), pp. 72-86. Springer.

[12]

BREWKA, G. 1989. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1989), pp. 1043-1048.

[13]

CAFERRA, R. AND PELTIER, N. 1995. Model building and interactive theory discovery. In Fourth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Volume 918 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1995), pp. 154-168. Springer.

[14]

CAFERRA, R. AND ZABEL, N. 1993. Building models by using tableaux extended by equational problems. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 3-25.

[15]

CLARKE, E. AND WING, J., ET AL. 1996. Formal methods: State of the art and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys 28, 4, 626-646.

[16]

COSTA, M., CUNNINGHAM, R., AND BOOTH, J. 1990. Logical animation. In Proceedings of the Twelth International Conference on Software Engineering (Nice, 1990), pp. 144-149. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[17]

CUGOLA, G., NITTO, E. D., FUGGETTA, A., AND GHEZZI, C. 1996. A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5, 3, 191-230.

[18]

CUGOLA, G., NITTO, E. D., GHEZZI, C., AND MANTIONE, M. 1995. How to deal with deviations during process model enactment. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-17) (Seattle, USA, 1995), pp. 265-273. ACM Press.

[19]

DA COSTA, N.C. 1974. On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15, 497-510.

[20]

DOWSON, M. 1993. Consistency maintenance in process sensitive environments. In Proceedings of Workshop on Process Sensitive Environments Architectures (Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1993). Rocky Mountain Institute of Software Engineering (RMISE).

[21]

DOYLE, J. 1979. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231-272.

[22]

EASTERBROOK, S. AND NUSEIBEH, B. 1995. Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification. In Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE '95) (1995), pp. 48-55. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[23]

EASTERBROOK, S. AND NUSEIBEH, B. 1996. Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. BCS/IEE Software Engineering Journal 11, 1, 31-43.

[24]

ELVANG-GORANSSON, M. AND HUNTER, A. 1995. Argumentative logics: Reasoning from classically inconsistent information. Data and Knowledge Engineering Journal 16, 125-145.

[25]

FEATHER, M. 1996. Modularized exception handling. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Multiple Perspectives in Software Development (Viewpoints 96) (1996), pp. 167-171. ACM Press.

[26]

FINKELSTEIN, A. AND DOWELL, g. 1996. A comedy of errors: The London Ambulance Service case study. In Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-8) (1996), pp. 2-4. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[27]

FINKELSTEIN, A., GABBAY, D., HUNTER, A., KRAMER, J., AND NUSEIBEH, B. 1994. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 8, 569-578.

[28]

FINKELSTEIN, A., KRAMER, J., NUSEIBEH, B., FINKELSTEIN, L., AND GOEDICKE, M. 1992. Viewpoints: A framework for multiple perspectives in system development. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (Special issue on Trends and Future Research Directions in Software Engineering Environments) 2, 1, 31-57.

[29]

FITTING, M. 1990. First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer.

[30]

GABBAY, D. AND HUNTER, A. 1991. Making inconsistency respectable 1: A logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning, In Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Volume 535 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1991), pp. 19-32. Springer.

[31]

GABBAY, D. AND HUNTER, A. 1993. Making inconsistency respectable 2: Meta-level handling of inconsistent data. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Qualitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU '93), Volume 747 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1993), pp. 129-136. Springer.

[32]

GABBAY, D. AND HUNTER, A. 1998. Negation and contradiction. In What is negation? Kluwer.

[33]

HAGENSEN, T. M. AND KRISTENSEN, B.B. 1992. Consistency in software system development: Framework, model, techniques and tools. Software Engineering Notes (Proceedings of ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments) 17, 5, 58-67.

[34]

HUNTER, A. 1996. Reasoning with contradictory information using quasi-classical logic. In Technical report (1996). Department of Computer Science, University College London. Available from www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/a.hunter.

[35]

HUNTER, A. 1998. Paraconsistent logics. In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management (1998). Kluwer.

[36]

HUNTER, A. AND NUSEIBEH, B. 1997. Analysing inconsistent specifications. In Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (1997), pp. 78-86. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[37]

KLEER, J.D. 1986. An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28, 127-162.

[38]

KRAUSE, P. AND CLARK, D. 1993. Representing Uncertain Knowledge. Intellect.

[39]

L Wos, E. L., R OVERBEEK, AND BOYLE, g. 1984. Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications. Prentice Hall.

[40]

LEONHARDT, U., FINKELSTEIN, A., KRAMER, J., AND NUSEIBEH, B. 1995. Decentralised process enactment in a multi-perspective development environment. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-17) (1995), pp. 255-264. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[41]

LINDSAY, P. A. 1988. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. BCS/IEE Software Engineering Journal (special issue on mechanical support for formal reasoning) 3, 1.

[42]

MCCUNE, W. 1990. OTTER 2.0 user's guide. Technical Report ANL-90/9, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.

[43]

NARAYANASWAMY, K. AND GOLDMAN, N. 1992. Lazy consistency: A basis for cooperative software development. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '92) (1992), pp. 257-264. ACM SIGCHI and SIGOIS.

[44]

NUSEIBEH, B. 1996. To be and not to be: On managing inconsistency in software development. In Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-8) (1996), pp. 164-169. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[45]

NUSEIBEH, B. AND FINKELSTEIN, A. 1992. Viewpoints: A vehicle for method and tool integration. In Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE '92) (Montreal, Canada, 1992), pp. 50-60. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[46]

NUSEIBEH, B., KRAMER, J., AND FINKELSTEIN, A. 1994. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 10, 760-773.

[47]

NUSEIBEH, B. AND RUSSO, n. 1998. On the consequences of acting in the presence of inconsistency. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (Ise-shima, Japan, 1998). IEEE Computer Society Press.

[48]

POOLE, D. 1985. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27-47.

[49]

PRAKKEN, H. 1993. An argument framework for default reasoning. In Annals of mathematics and artificial intelligence, Volume 9 (1993).

[50]

Russo, n., NUSEIBEH, B., AND KRAMER, g. 1998. Restructuring requirements specifications for inconsistency analysis: A case study. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE98) (Colorado Springs, USA, 1998). IEEE Computer Society Press.

[51]

RYAN, M. 1992. Representing defaults as sentences with reduced priority. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (1992). Morgan Kaufmann.

[52]

SCHUMANN, J. 1993. SCOTT: A model-guided theorem prover. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI '93) (1993), pp. 109-114.

[53]

SCHUMANN, J. 1994. SETHEO V3.2: Recent developments. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computer-Aided Deduction (CADE-12), Volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1994). Springer.

[54]

SCHWANKE, R. W. AND KAISER, G.E. 1988. Living with inconsistency in large systems. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Version and Configuration Control (1988), pp. 98-118. B G Teubner.

[55]

SLANEY, J. 1996. FINDER: Finite domain enumerator version 3 notes and guide. Technical report, Centre for Information Science Research, Australian National University.

[56]

ZAVE, P. AND JACKSON, M. 1993. Conjunction as composition. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2, 4, 379-411.

Cited By

Brizzio MRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Resolving Goal-Conflicts and Scaling Synthesis through Mode-Based DecompositionProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3639801(207-211)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3639801
Gärtner AGöhlich D(2024)Automated requirement contradiction detection through formal logic and LLMsAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-024-00452-x31:2Online publication date: 6-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-024-00452-x
Wen HWu JJiang JTang GHong Z(2023)A Formal Approach for Consistency Management in UML ModelsInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering10.1142/S021819402350013433:05(733-763)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194023500134
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Efficient reasoning with inconsistent information using C-systems

The paper subsumes and extends in a radical way a line of research aimed at automation of reasoning with inconsistent information using paraconsistent logics. We provide a new method for uniform, modular construction of analytic calculi for all major ...
Taming Paraconsistent (and Other) Logics: An Algorithmic Approach

We develop a fully algorithmic approach to “taming” logics expressed Hilbert style, that is, reformulating them in terms of analytic sequent calculi and useful semantics. Our approach applies to Hilbert calculi extending the positive fragment of ...
Strong Paraconsistency and the Basic Constructive Logic for an Even Weaker Sense of Consistency

In a standard sense, consistency and paraconsistency are understood as the absence of any contradiction and as the absence of the ECQ (`E contradictione quodlibet') rule, respectively. The concepts of weak consistency (in two different senses) as well ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Volume 7, Issue 4

Oct. 1998

115 pages

ISSN:1049-331X

EISSN:1557-7392

DOI:10.1145/292182

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 1998 ACM.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 1998

Published in TOSEM Volume 7, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

134
Total Citations
View Citations
1,517
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)137
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24

Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Brizzio MRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Resolving Goal-Conflicts and Scaling Synthesis through Mode-Based DecompositionProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3639801(207-211)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3639801
Gärtner AGöhlich D(2024)Automated requirement contradiction detection through formal logic and LLMsAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-024-00452-x31:2Online publication date: 6-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-024-00452-x
Wen HWu JJiang JTang GHong Z(2023)A Formal Approach for Consistency Management in UML ModelsInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering10.1142/S021819402350013433:05(733-763)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194023500134
Elrakaiby YBorgida AFerrari AMylopoulos J(2022)CaRE: a refinement calculus for requirements engineering based on argumentation theorySoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-021-00943-521:6(2113-2132)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-021-00943-5
ElRakaiby YBorgida AFerrari AMylopoulos J(2020)A Refinement Calculus for Requirements Engineering Based on Argumentation TheoryConceptual Modeling10.1007/978-3-030-62522-1_1(3-18)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-62522-1_1
Guerra Ede Lara JWąsowski APaige RHaugen Ø(2018)On the Quest for Flexible ModellingProceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1145/3239372.3239376(23-33)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3239372.3239376
Elrakaiby YFerrari AMylopoulos J(2018)CaRE: A Refinement Calculus for Requirements Engineering Based on Argumentation Semantics2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)10.1109/RE.2018.00-24(364-369)Online publication date: Aug-2018
https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00-24
Viana TZisman ABandara A(2017)Identifying Conflicting Requirements in Systems of Systems2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)10.1109/RE.2017.48(436-441)Online publication date: Sep-2017
https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.48
Degiovanni RRicci NAlrajeh DCastro PAguirre NLo DApel SKhurshid S(2016)Goal-conflict detection based on temporal satisfiability checkingProceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/2970276.2970349(507-518)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2970276.2970349
Lo DApel SKhurshid S(2016)Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software EngineeringundefinedOnline publication date: 25-Aug-2016
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents