Definition and uses of the i* metamodel

The clear definition of a metamodel can be considered helpful for any conceptual modeling approach, and the i* framework is not an exception. Agreeing on a metamodel for i* can be considered even more convenient than ever when we are aware of the different dialects and variations that the commu-nity proposed, and keep proposing, over the seminal i* definition. In this paper we present the revised version of the i* metamodel proposed by the GESSI re-search group at 2005 and we report some current contexts of use: 1) definition of a data interchange format; 2) definition of the inheritance construct; 3) defi-nition of a modularity construct; and 4) definition of a metrics framework.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

The notion of specialization in the i*framework

This thesis provides a formal proposal for the specialization relationship in the i* framework that allows its use in a well-defined manner. I root my proposal over existing works in different areas that are interested in representing knowledge: knowledge representation from Artificial Intelligence and conceptual modeling and object-oriented programming languages from Software Development. Also, I use the results of a survey conducted in the i* community that provides some insights about what i* modelers expect from specialization. As a consequence of this twofold analysis, I identify three specialization operations: extension, refinement and redefinition. For each of them, I: - motivate its need and provide some rationale; - distinguish the several cases that can occur in each operation; - define the elements involved in each of these cases and the correctness conditions that must be fulfilled; - demonstrate by induction the fulfilment of the conditions identified for preserving satisfaction; - provide some illustrative examples in the context of an exemplar about travel agencies and travelers. The specialization relationship is offered by the i* framework through the is-a construct defined over actors (a subactor is-a superactor) since it was first released. Although the overall meaning of this construct is highly intuitive, its effects at the level of intentional elements and dependencies are not always clear, hampering seriously its appropriate use. In order to be able to reason about correctness and satisfaction, I define previously the conditions that must be preserved when a specialization takes place. In addition, I provide a methodology with well-defined steps that contextualize the formal aspects of this thesis in a development process. As a conclusion, this thesis is making possible the use of the specialization relationship in i* in a precise, non-ambiguous manner

A semantically-enriched goal-oriented requirements engineering framework for systems of systems using the i* framework applied to cancer care

In recent years, monolithic systems are being composed into bigger systems as Systems of Systems (SoSs). This evolution of SoS raises several software engineering key challenges, such as the management of emerging inconsistent goals and requirements, which may occur among the various Constituent Systems (CSs) themselves, as well as between the entire SoS and the participating CSs. Another significant challenge is that Systems of Systems Engineering (SoSE) involves more stakeholders than traditional systems engineering, i.e. stakeholders at the SoS-level and the CS-level, where each CS has its own needs and objectives which establish a complex stakeholder environment. To respond to these challenges, this research is aimed at investigating the implications of applying a goal-oriented requirements engineering approach in identifying, modelling and managing emerging goals and their conflicts in SoS context. The key artefact of this research is the development of a Semantically-Enriched Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering Framework for Systems of Systems using the i* framework, namely the OntoSoS.GORE framework.The OntoSoS.GORE is a three-layered framework designed, developed, demonstrated and then evaluated through following multiple iterations of the Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) phases, to accomplish the following main objectives: (1) identifying and modelling the SoS global goals and the CSs local goals at different levels of an SoS using the i* framework, in which a new process to extract i* modelling elements from existing user documentation is proposed; (2) maintaining the consistency and integrity of SoS goals at multiple levels through developing a semantic Goals Referential Integrity (sGRI) model in SoS context which consists of an SoSGRI model and an ontology-based model; and (3) managing any conflicts that may occur amongst goals at both the SoS-level and the CS-level, by developing and applying a new goal conflict management approach in SoS context, which consists of two main processes: goal conflict detection and goal conflict resolution.The research framework has been instantiated and validated by applying a real Cancer Care case study at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Amman, Jordan. Results revealed the effectiveness of applying the framework compared to the current approach applied at KHCC, in terms of addressing higher consistency, completeness and correctness with regard to goal management and conflict management in SoS context. Moreover, the framework provides automation of the processes of following the satisfaction of goals and goals’ conflict management at multiple SoS levels, instead of the manual approach applied currently at KHCC. This automation is accomplished through developing a strategic goal-oriented management tool that is anticipated to be delivered and utilised at KHCC, as well as applying it to other SoS organisations as a proposed solution for goal and conflict management. Another contribution to the Cancer Care and SoS domains is developing a reference i* goal-oriented model for access to Cancer Care which provides a wider system engineering perspective and offers an accessible level of abstraction about Cancer Care goals and their dependencies for stakeholders and domain experts. The reference model provides standardisation of common generic concepts about the domain, in which other Cancer Care organisations can considerably reuse to facilitate the process of capturing and specifying goals and requirements for their practice and validating choices among alternative designs

Ontological analysis of means-end links

The i* community has raised several main dialects and dozens of variations in the definition of the i* language. Differences may be found related not just to the representation of new concepts but to the very core of the i* language. In previous work we have tackled this issue mainly from a syntactic point of view, using metamodels and syntactic-based model interoperability frameworks. In this paper, we go one step beyond and consider the use of foundational ontologies in general, and UFO in particular, as a way to clarify the meaning of core i* constructs and as the basis to propose a normative definition. We focus here on one of the most characteristics i* constructs, namely means-end links.Postprint (published version

Definition and uses of the i* metamodel

The clear definition of a metamodel can be considered helpful for any conceptual modeling approach, and the i* framework is not an exception. Agreeing on a metamodel for i* can be considered even more convenient than ever when we are aware of the different dialects and variations that the commu-nity proposed, and keep proposing, over the seminal i* definition. In this paper we present the revised version of the i* metamodel proposed by the GESSI re-search group at 2005 and we report some current contexts of use: 1) definition of a data interchange format; 2) definition of the inheritance construct; 3) defi-nition of a modularity construct; and 4) definition of a metrics framework.Peer Reviewe

Definition and uses of the i* metamodel

The clear definition of a metamodel can be considered helpful for any conceptual modeling approach, and the i* framework is not an exception. Agreeing on a metamodel for i* can be considered even more convenient than ever when we are aware of the different dialects and variations that the commu-nity proposed, and keep proposing, over the seminal i* definition. In this paper we present the revised version of the i* metamodel proposed by the GESSI re-search group at 2005 and we report some current contexts of use: 1) definition of a data interchange format; 2) definition of the inheritance construct; 3) defi-nition of a modularity construct; and 4) definition of a metrics framework.Peer Reviewe