Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.

Kanger's Choices in Automated Reasoning

This article explains these choices and their place in modern automated deduction.

Connecting Scientific Data to Scientific Experiments with Provenance

As scientific workflows and the data they operate on, grow in size and complexity, the task of defining how those workflows should execute (which resources to use, where the resources must be in readiness for processing etc.) becomes proportionally more difficult. While "workflow compilers", such as Pegasus, reduce this burden, a further problem arises: since specifying details of execution is now automatic, a workflow's results are harder to interpret, as they are partly due to specifics of execution. By automating steps between the experiment design and its results, we lose the connection between them, hindering interpretation of results. To reconnect the scientific data with the original experiment, we argue that scientists should have access to the full provenance of their data, including not only parameters, inputs and intermediary data, but also the abstract experiment, refined into a concrete execution by the "workflow compiler". In this paper, we describe preliminary work on adapting Pegasus to capture the process of workflow refinement in the PASOA provenance system.