The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering
Abstract
Exploring alternative options is at the heart of the requirements and design processes. Different alternatives contribute to different degrees of achievement of non-functional goals about system safety, security, performance, usability, and so forth. Such goals in general cannot be satisfied in an absolute, clear-cut sense. Various qualitative and quantitative frameworks have been proposed to support the assessment of alternatives for design decision making. In general they lead to limited conclusions due to the lack of accuracy and measurability of goal formulations and the lack of impact propagation rules along goal contribution links.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
SAATY, T. L., & KEARNS, K. P. (1985) · Analytical Planning · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 · Cited by 15,357
GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Leake, C., & Malczewski, J. (2000) · The Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/254268 · Cited by 3,032
Probability and Statistics With Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science Applications.
Thompson, W. A., & Trivedi, K. S. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288237 · Cited by 2,601
On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering
Chung, L., & do Prado Leite, J. C. S. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_19 · Cited by 2,247
Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour
van Lamsweerde, A. (2002) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/isre.2001.948567 · Cited by 1,723
Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering
Chung, L., Nixon, B. A., Yu, E., & Mylopoulos, J. (2000) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5269-7 · Cited by 1,690
Safeware: System Safety and Computers
Leveson, N. G. (1995) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 1,688
Quality Function Deployment : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design
Akao, Y. (1990) · Cited by 1,680
Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification
Dwyer, M. B., Avrunin, G. S., & Corbett, J. C. (1999) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/302405.302672 · Cited by 1,463
Tsoukiàs, A. (1993) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.1993.60 · Cited by 1,403
Cited by
RELAX: Incorporating Uncertainty into the Specification of Self-Adaptive Systems
Whittle, J., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Cheng, B. H. C., & Bruel, J.-M. (2009) · 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference · doi:10.1109/re.2009.36 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Letier, E., & van Lamsweerde, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT twelfth international symposium on Foundations of software engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2004-10-31
- Pages
- 53-62
- OpenAlex
- W2222782578
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 7.16
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1029894.1029905
- The paper
- Letier, E., & van Lamsweerde, A. (2004). Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT twelfth international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1029894.1029905
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
