D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL ... - SecureChange

Recommendations

Info

26 F. Massacci and L.M.S. Tran 16. M. LaMantia, Y. Cai, A. MacCormack, and J. Rusnak. Analyzing the evolution of large-scale software systems using design structure matrices and design rule theory: Two exploratory cases. In Proc. of WICSA ’08, pages 83–92, 2008. 17. M. Lehman. On understanding laws, evolution and conservation in the large program life cycle. J. of Sys. and Soft., 1(3):213 –221, 1980. 18. M. Lehman. Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc. IEEE 68, 9:1060 –1076, September 1980. 19. L. Lin, S. Prowell, and J. Poore. The impact of requirements changes on specifications and state machines. SP&E, 39(6):573–610, 2009. 20. P. Loucopoulos and E. V. Kavakli. Enterprise modelling and the teleological approach to requirements engineering. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 4(1):44–79, 1995. 21. P. Loucopoulos and E. V. Kavakli. Enterprise knowledge management and conceptual modelling. In Selected Papers from the Symposium on Conceptual Modeling, Current Issues and Future Directions, pages 123–143, London, UK, 1999. Springer-Verlag. 22. K. Mertins and R. Jochem. Integrated enterprise modeling: method and tool. ACM SIGOIS Bulletin, 18(2), 1997. 23. S. Nurcan and J. Barrios. Enterprise knowledge and information system modelling in an evolving environment. In International Workshop on Engineering Methods to Support Information Systems Evolution (EMSISE’03), 2003. 24. S. Nurcan, J. Barrios, G. Grosz, and C. Rolland. Change process modelling using the ekd change management method. In Proceedings of 7th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS’99, pages 513–529, June 23-25 1999. 25. S. Nurcan and C. Rolland. A multi-method for defining the organizational change. A multi-method for defining the organizational change, pages 61–82, 2003. 26. Project ELEKTRA. ELEKTRA: Enhanced Learning Experience and Knowledge TRAnsfer. http://www.elektra-project.org, Retrieved April 4 2011. 27. Project PROTEUS. Deliverable 1.3: Meeting the challenge of chainging requirements. Technical report, Centre for Software Reliability, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, June 1996. 28. Project SECURECHANGE. Deliverable 1.1: Description of the scenarios and their requirements. http://securechange.eu/content/deliverables, 2010. 29. R. Ravichandar, J. Arthur, S. Bohner, and D. Tegarden. Improving change tolerance through capabilities-based design: an empirical analysis. J. of Soft. Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 20(2):135–170, 2008. 30. C. Rolland, S. Nurcan, and G. Grosz. Enterprise knowledge development: the process view. Information & Management, 36(3):165 – 184, 1999. 31. J. Rooksby, M. Rouncefield, and I. Sommerville. Testing in the wild: The social and organisational dimensions of real world practice. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(5-6):559–580, 2009. 32. D. Ross and K. Schoman. Structured analsysis for requirements definition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 3(1):69–84, 1977. 33. A. Russo, B. Nuseibeh, and J. Kramer. Restructuring requirements specifications. In IEE Proceedings: Software, volume 146, pages 44 – 53, 1999. 34. A.-W. Scheer. ARIS–business process modeling. Heidelberg, German: Springer-Verlag, 2000. 35. G. Shafer, V. Vovk, and R. Chychyla. How to base probability theory on perfectinformation games. BEATCS, 100:115 – 148, February 2010. 36. P. Soffer. Scope analysis: identifying the impact of changes in business process models. J. of Soft. Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(4):393–402, 2005.
Dealing with Known Unknowns: A Goal-based Approach 27 37. L. M. S. Tran. Dealing with known unknowns: A goal-based approach for understanding complex systems evolution. Technical report, University of Trento, 2011. 38. L. M. S. Tran and F. Massacci. Dealing with known unknowns: Towards a gametheoretic foundation for software requirement evolution. In Proceedings of the 23th Conference On Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 62–76, 2011. 39. F. Vernadat. UEML: Towards a unified enterprise modelling language. International Journal of Production Research, 40(17), 2002. 40. F. B. Vernadat. Enterprise Modeling and Integration Principles and Applications. Chapman and Hall Publisher, 1996. 41. E. Yu. Strategic modelling for enterprise integration, 1999. 42. D. Zowghi and R. Offen. A logical framework for modeling and reasoning about the evolution of requirements. ICRE ’97, 1997. Appendix Table 3 Full DAT table of the root node g 1 Design Alternative (DA) MB RR Trail (T) 1 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 10, g 11} 1.80% 98.20% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 0〉} 2 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15} 5.40% 94.60% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 3 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17} 5.40% 94.60% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 4 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20} 4.80% 95.20% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 5 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 21} 4.80% 95.20% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 6 {g 9, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20, g 21} 4.80% 95.20% {〈ro1, 0〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 7 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 10, g 11} 6.30% 93.70% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 0〉} 8 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15} 18.90% 81.10% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 9 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17} 18.90% 81.10% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 10 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 11 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 21} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 12 {g 9, g 12, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20, g 21} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 13 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 10, g 11} 6.30% 93.70% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 0〉} 14 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15} 18.90% 81.10% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 15 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17} 18.90% 81.10% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 16 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 17 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 21} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 18 {g 9, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20, g 21} 16.80% 83.20% {〈ro1, 1〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 19 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 10, g 11} 6.90% 93.10% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 0〉} 20 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15} 20.70% 79.30% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 21 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17} 20.70% 79.30% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 1〉} 22 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20} 18.40% 81.60% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 23 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 21} 18.40% 81.60% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉} 24 {g 9, g 12, g 13, g 6, g 7, g 11, g 15, g 16, g 17, g 19, g 20, g 21} 18.40% 81.60% {〈ro1, 2〉 , 〈ro2, 2〉}
Page 1 and 2:
D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL RE
Page 3 and 4:
1.14 19 January Final 1.15 23 Janua
Page 5 and 6:
Index DOCUMENT INFORMATION 1 DOCUME
Page 7 and 8:
1 Introduction This deliverable pre
Page 9 and 10:
(Clause 6.4.3) processes of ISO/IEC
Page 11 and 12:
3 Orchestrating Requirements and Ri
Page 13 and 14:
grey. The ADS-B introduction requir
Page 15 and 16:
The security risk manager identifie
Page 17 and 18:
are supported by the argumentation
Page 19 and 20:
ADS-B Manage ADS-B signal ADS-B sig
Page 21 and 22:
the stagnation suite (i.e. obsolete
Page 23 and 24:
5 A framework for modeling and reas
Page 25 and 26:
sectors. And there is 42% of probab
Page 27 and 28:
SDA(C) = {DA 2 , DA 4 , DA 8 , DA 1
Page 29 and 30:
application contexts is saved if th
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 14. ATM model state after qu
Page 33 and 34:
References [1] Yudis Asnar, Fabio M
Page 35 and 36:
Managing Changes with Legacy Securi
Page 37 and 38:
Failure in the provisioning of corr
Page 39 and 40:
propagated to the system designer a
Page 41 and 42:
APPENDIX B D.3.3 Algorithms for Inc
Page 43 and 44:
is sometimes difficult, especially
Page 45 and 46:
Tactical Monitor air R controller t
Page 47 and 48:
protected from harm. Since in CORAS
Page 49 and 50:
CModel. The postcondtion checks the
Page 51 and 52:
of ADS-B signal and Availability of
Page 53 and 54:
extensions to i* to model and analy
Page 55 and 56:
3. Bzivin, J., Dup, G., Jouault, F.
Page 57 and 58:
APPENDIX C D.3.3 Algorithms for Inc
Page 59 and 60: steps. Section V demonstrates the R
Page 61 and 62: that should be mitigated by the sys
Page 63 and 64: CPU value PINconfirmed(PIN, card-de
Page 65 and 66: TABLE IV PRIORITIZATION OF RISKS FO
Page 67 and 68: context. We believe that the Common
Page 69 and 70: Managing Evolution by Orchestrating
Page 71 and 72: 1.1 The Contribution of this Paper
Page 73 and 74: Fig. 3. Integrated Change Managemen
Page 75 and 76: The requirement analysis is an iter
Page 77 and 78: Table 1. Conceptual Interface Requi
Page 79 and 80: Legend: Goals surrounded by dashed
Page 81 and 82: Table 5. Test Suite for GP-2.2 Tran
Page 83 and 84: 6. P. K. Chittimalli and M. J. Harr
Page 85 and 86: Noname manuscript No. (will be inse
Page 87 and 88: Dealing with Known Unknowns: A Goal
Page 109: Dealing with Known Unknowns: A Goal
Page 113 and 114: Understanding How to Manage Require
Page 115 and 116: Chatzoglou et al. [4] conducted a s
Page 117 and 118: Evolution Elicitation Probability E
Page 119 and 120: Table 2. Participants Background Pa
Page 121 and 122: for the defined success criteria. O
Page 123 and 124: Fig. 3. Codes Coverage ATM systems,
Page 125 and 126: The feedbacks provided by the ATM e
Page 127 and 128: 3. P. Carlshamre, K. Sandahl, M. Li
Page 129 and 130: Quick fix generation for DSMLs Ábe
Page 131 and 132: • extensibility: the supported li
Page 133 and 134: Fig. 7. Overview of the Quick fix g
Page 135 and 136: Fig. 9. Evaluation results (|V(M I
show all

D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL ... - SecureChange

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?