establishing regulatory compliance in goal-oriented requirements analysis

Establishing Regulatory Compliance in Goal-Oriented

Requirements Analysis

Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Yu Negishi, Shinpei Hayashi,and Motoshi Saeki

1

Motivationl Regulatory compliance in IS development– Eliciting regulatory compliant requirements in an

early stage is important for reducing total cost

l Goal-oriented requirements analysis (GORA) is beneficial– Goal decomposition can be useful to trace rationale

2

Necessity to elicit regulatory compliant requirements

Derivation of regulatory compliant goals

Purpose

l To derive this kind of fixes, we need ...1. Detecting regulatory incompliant (violated) goals2. Adding goals to avoid regulatory violations

3

A suppliermails a product

Get the addressfrom a customer

Delivera product to

a carrier

A suppliernotifies a customerof the purpose of

utilization

Article 18, Act on the Protection of Personal InformationWhen having acquired personal information, a business operator shall promptly notify the person of the purpose of utilization.



Delivera product to

a carrier

Goal model Regulation

1. Detecting regulatory incompliant goalsProblem

4

How can we match these sentences?

Get = AcquireAddress = Personal Information



Article 18, Act on the Protection of Personal Information

When having acquired personal information, a business operator shall promptly notify the person of the purpose of utilization.

2. Adding goals to avoid violationsProblem

5

How can we generate the descriptionand modify the goal structure?



Regulatory compliant goal model



Notify the customerof the purpose of

utilization

Goal Model Regulation

1. Detecting regulatory incompliant goalsOur Solution

6





Situation case frame

Usage of case frames (CTs) for the matchingto detect the candidates

verb subject direct object

indirect object

Get Supplier Address Customer

verb actor object source

Acquire Business operator

Personalinformation

✔

2. Adding goals to avoid violationsOur Solution

7



Get = AcquireAddress = Personal Info.

Customer = Person

Generate goal description from the prepared template patterns and substitute the words in it

Regulatory compliant goal model



Notify the customerof the purpose of

utilization

Matching result

Wordsubstitution

Notifies (y: person)of the purposeof utilization

Goal template

8

Proposed Techniquel Matching using CFs (1, 2, 3, 4)l Goal generation for compliance (5, 6, 7)

Goalmodel

7. Adding new goalsto the goal model

4. Matching goalsand regulations

Case framesof goals

Case frames of regulationsRegulation

5. Generatinggoals by patterns

Identifyingregulatoryviolation

Termmatchinginformation

x = □□

6. Generatinggoal descriptions

Goalsto be added

1. Developing caseframes of regulations

2. Supplementinggoal descriptions

3. Translating goalsinto case frames

Modifiedgoalmodel

Dict.

Developing Regulation CFsl Converts regulations into CFs

9

Article 18, Act on the Protectionof Personal Information Situation CF

Act CF (Modality: Obligation)


Acquire x Personal information y

verb actor object target

Notify x Purpose of utilization y

When having acquired personal information,a business operatorshall promptlynotify the person of the purpose of utilization.

Words of the same meaning aremodeled using variables

Supplementing Descriptionsl Goal descriptions are often omitted– Hampers the matching process

l Supplements them from ancestors

10



A supplier getsthe address from

a customer

Goals and goal descriptions Surface structures

Lexical analyzer

verb subject direct object indirect object

Mail Supplier Product −


Get − Address Customer



Goal-to-CF Translation

11[1] Nakamura et al.: Terminology Matching of Requirements Specification Documents and Regulations for Compliance Checking. In Proc. RELAW 2015.

Dictionary of case frames

Candidates of case frame close to Get

...

1st

10th

Dictionary ofhierarchical concepts

Thing

Address

Human

Customer,Supplier

“A supplier gets the address from a customer”

Surface structure Ranked CFs

... ...


Acquire Supplier Address Customer

Learn − Address −


Acquire Human Thing Human

Learn − Thing −

verb subject direct object

indirect object


CFmatching [1]

Goal-Regulation Matching

12

Regulationin CFs


Personal information

Address

Thing

Telephone number

Situation Obligation of Act

x = SupplierPersonal information = Address

y = Customer

A supplier notifiesa customer of the

purpose of utilization

New goal to be added

A supplier getsthe address

from a customer

✔ ✔


Supplement






✔Similar! x notifies y of the


Goal Generation Patterns

13

Obligation

Prohibition

Exemption (+Obligation)

Permission (+Prohibition)

G1: Or

G2: Oa

G1: Pr

G2:Check ¬Pa

G1: Or

G2:If ¬Er, Oa

G3: Er

G1: Pr

G2: If ¬Fr ,check ¬Pa

G3:If Fr , Pa

Obligation and Exemptionl Generate a goal to force the act part

14

G1: Or

G2: Oa

Situation part

act part

Obligation Exemption + Obligation

G1: Or

G2:If ¬Er, Oa G3: Er

If exemption condition doesn’t hold,follow the obligation

Exemptionconditionholds

Prohibition and Permissionl Generate a goal to check whether prohibition happens

15

Prohibition Permission + Prohibition

15

G1: Pr

G2:Check ¬Pa

Situation part

Checking whetherthe prohibited actdoes not happen

G1: Pr


G3:If Fr , Pa

If permission doesn’t hold,check the prohibited act

If permission holds, allow the prohibited act

Adding Generated Goall Preserving the logical meaning

17



New goal

A supplier mailsa Product


Deliver aproduct toa carrier

Bytelephone

ByE-mail

OR decomposition

A supplier mailsa Product


Deliver aproduct toa carrier

Bytelephone

ByE-mail


purpose of utilizationIntermediategoal

AND

OR

Implementationl Architecture– Extension of a GORA editor [1]– Target language: Japanese• Language resource: EDR dictionary [2]• Lexical analyzer: Cabocha [3]

l Features– Automated application of the matching process– Automated generation of goals to avoid incompliance

18

[1] Saeki et al.: A tool for attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis. In Proc. ASE 2009.[2] EDR electronic dictionary，http://www2.nict.go.jp/out-promotion/techtransfer/EDR/J_index.html[3] Cabocha, http://taku910.github.io/cabocha/

Evaluationl Q1 (Detection Accuracy):

How many occurrences of regulatory violation can be identified?

l Q2 (Solution Acceptance):Can regulatory violations be resolved by the suggested sub-goals?

19

Creators ofground truths

--------------------------------

Regulations

Examples

Proposed modifications

Supportingtool

Correct answer of

the violation goals

Identification resultsby tool

Modifiedgoal model

Comparisonresults

Experimentenforcer

Q2

Precision, recall

Creators ofGround truths

(the same persons)

Q1

Systems and Actsl Case 1: Online shopping (like Amazon)– # goals: 31, max depth: 4– Related acts (7 articles):• Act on Protection of Personal Information• Act on Specified Commercial Transactions • Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading

Representations

l Case 2: Pet shopping– # goals: 19, max depth: 4– Related acts (7 articles):• Act on Welfare and Management of Animals

Q1: Detection AccuracyResults

l ~Half of violations were correctly detected– Precision 47%, Recall 50%– The existing technique [1] missed these all violations

21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Online Pet Total

Precision

Recall

75% 75%

30%27%

50%47%

6/8 6/8

3/10 3/119/18 9/19

[1]Nakamura et al.: Terminology Matching of Requirements Specification Documents and Regulations for Compliance Checking. In Proc. RELAW 2015.

Q2: Solution AcceptanceResults

l Solutions were accepted in most cases– 73% of violations were resolved– 93% of violations were (at least partially) resolved

l Negative results were mainly due toinappropriate patterns

22

Resolved Resolved alternatively Resolved partially Not resolved Unknown

43% 20% 3%30% 3%

Related Workl Extension of existing requirements model– URN framework extension for regulatory

compliance [1]– KAOS extension for regulatory compliance [2]→Although they can confirm incompliance, they did not support the derivation of requirements to avoid incompliance

l i* extension using NOMOS model– It can deduce requirements to avoid incompliance [3]– It requires to learn the extended model

[1] Ghanavati et al.: Goal-oriented compliance with multiple regulations. In Proc. RE 2014.[2] Ishikawa et al.: Modeling, Analyzing and Weaving Legal Interpretations in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In Proc. RELAW 2009.[3] Siena et al.: A meta-model for modelling law-compliant requirements. In Prco. RELAW 2009. 23

ConclusionPurpose

l To derive this kind of fixes, we need ...1. Detecting regulatory incompliant (violated) goals2. Adding goals to avoid regulatory violations

3



Delivera product to

a carrier

A suppliernotifies a customerof the purpose of

utilization

Article 18, Act on the Protection of Personal InformationWhen having acquired personal information, a business operator shall promptly notify the person of the purpose of utilization.



Delivera product to

a carrier

Goal-Regulation Matching

12

Regulationin CFs


Personal information

Address

Thing

Telephone number

Situation Obligation of Act

x = SupplierPersonal information = Address

y = Customer



New goal to be added

A supplier getsthe address

from a customer

� �


Supplement






�Similar! x notifies y of the


Goal Generation Patterns

13

Obligation

Prohibition

Exemption (+Obligation)

Permission (+Prohibition)

G1: Or

G2: Oa

G1: Pr

G2:Check ¬Pa

G1: Or

G2:If ¬Er, Oa

G3: Er

G1: Pr


G3:If Fr , Pa

Q1: Detection Accuracy

Results

l ~Half of violations were correctly detected

– Precision 47%, Recall 50%

– The existing technique [1] missed these all violations

21

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Online

Pet

Total

Precision

Recall

75% 75%

30%27%

50%47%

6/8 6/8

3/10 3/11

9/18 9/19

[1]Nakamura et al.: Terminology Matching of Requirements Specification Documents and Regulations for Compliance Checking. In Proc. RELAW 2015.

Q2: Solution AcceptanceResults

l Solutions were accepted in most cases

– 73% of violations were resolved

– 93% of violations were (at least partially) resolved

l Negative results were mainly due to

inappropriate patterns

22

Resolved Resolved alternatively Resolved partially Not resolved Unknown43%20% 3%

30%

3%

Creditsl Judge hammer | ssalonso | Flickr– https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssalonso/3989418655

establishing regulatory compliance in goal-oriented requirements analysis

Software