From inconsistency handling to non-canonical requirements management: A logical perspective

As a class of defects in software requirements specification, inconsistency has been widely studied in both requirements engineering and software engineering. It has been increasingly recognized that maintaining consistency alone often results in some other types of non-canonical requirements, including incompleteness of a requirements specification, vague requirements statements, and redundant requirements statements. It is therefore desirable for inconsistency handling to take into account the related non-canonical requirements in requirements engineering. To address this issue, we propose an intuitive generalization of logical techniques for handling inconsistency to those that are suitable for managing non-canonical requirements, which deals with incompleteness and redundancy, in addition to inconsistency. We first argue that measuring non-canonical requirements plays a crucial role in handling them effectively. We then present a measure-driven logic framework for managing non-canonical requirements. The framework consists of five main parts, identifying non-canonical requirements, measuring them, generating candidate proposals for handling them, choosing commonly acceptable proposals, and revising them according to the chosen proposals. This generalization can be considered as an attempt to handle non-canonical requirements along with logic-based inconsistency handling in requirements engineering.

The Pluralism of Human Rights Adjudication

This chapter considers judicial reasoning in ‘human rights’ cases. Are there techniques that courts share, or are different techniques adopted, to decide how human rights, in this broader sense, are protected? The chapter aims to adopt a comparative approach to the examination of this reasoning, through a detailed examination of similar human rights issues in a range of jurisdictions. The aim of the chapter is to examine the similarities and divergences in the reasoning developed by courts when addressing comparable human rights questions. The chapter shows that human rights reasoning involves distinctive and particular forms of legal reasoning, but that its form and content differ significantly
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and over time within jurisdictions. Building upon these findings, the chapter explores what these similarities and differences tell us about the nature, and the direction of travel, of human rights law which comprises notionally universal norms.

Litigating Religions: Human rights, faith and pluralism

These are the podcasts of the three Alberico Gentili Lectures presented at the University of Macerata:

The Complexity of MAP Inference in Bayesian Networks Specified Through Logical Languages

We study the computational complexity of finding maximum a posteriori configurations in Bayesian networks whose probabilities are specified by logical formulas. This approach leads to a fine grained study in which local information such as context-sensitive independence and determinism can be considered. It also allows us to characterize more precisely the jump from tractability to NP-hardness and beyond, and to consider the complexity introduced by evidence alone.

On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective

A core activity in information systems development involves building a conceptual model of the domain that an information system is intended to support. Such models are created using a conceptual-modeling (CM) grammar. Just as high-quality conceptual models facilitate high-quality systems development, high-quality CM grammars facilitate high-quality conceptual modeling. This paper provides a new perspective on ways to improve the quality of the semantics of CM grammars. For many years, the leading approach to this topic has relied on ontological theory. We show, however, that the ontological approach captures only half the story. It needs to be coupled with a logical approach. We explain how the ontological quality and logical quality of CM grammars interrelate. Furthermore, we outline three contributions that a logical approach can make to evaluating the quality of CM grammars: a means of seeing some familiar conceptual-modeling problems in simpler ways; the illumination of new problems; and the ability to prove the benefit of modifying existing CM grammars in particular ways. We demonstrate these benefits in the context of the Entity-Relationship grammar. More generally, our paper opens up a new area of research with many opportunities for future research and practice.

Logic Brightens My Day: Evidence for Implicit Sensitivity to Logical Validity.

A key assumption of dual process theory is that reasoning is an explicit, effortful, deliberative process. The present study offers evidence for an implicit, possibly intuitive component of reasoning. Participants were shown sentences embedded in logically valid or invalid arguments. Participants were not asked to reason but instead rated the sentences for liking (Experiment 1) and physical brightness (Experiments 2-3). Sentences that followed logically from preceding sentences were judged to be more likable and brighter. Two other factors thought to be linked to implicit processing-sentence believability and facial expression-had similar effects on liking and brightness ratings. The authors conclude that sensitivity to logical structure was implicit, occurring potentially automatically and outside of awareness. They discuss the results within a fluency misattribution framework and make reference to the literature on discourse comprehension.