The RationalGRL Toolset for Goal
Models and Argument Diagrams
Marc VAN ZEE a,1 , Diana MAROSIN b , Floris BEX c , Sepideh, GHANAVATI da
Computer Science and Communication, University of Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
bLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Luxembourg
cInformation and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
dICIS, Radboud University, The Netherlands
Problem Statement. The Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL) aims atmodeling high-level business and system goals, subgoals and tasks and analyzing
the alternative ways of achieving these goals and subgoals. However, GRL models
are only the end product of a modeling process, and they do not provide any
insight on how the models were created. For instance, they do not show what
reasons were used to choose certain elements in the model and to reject the others
and what evidence was given as the basis of this reasoning. There are, thus, several
questions that are not answered in GRL: Why is a goal created? Why are somegoals evaluated positively and some negatively? Do we have any evidence for thefact that performing a certain task contributes to a goal?
Overview of the Framework The main components of the RationalGRL framework
are shown in Figure 1. The four main parts of the framework, Argumentation,
Translation, Goal Modeling, and Update, are numbered and depicted in bold.
For each component, the technology used to implement it is marked in a filled
rectangle.
1.Argumentation

3. Goal Modeling

2. Translation

GRL Model

Argument
DiagramGRL Evaluation

PHP/Javascript
OVA

jUCMNav
Argument
DiagramArgument
Evaluation

TOAST

4. Update

Figure 1. Overview of the RationalGRL Framework
1 Corresponding Author: marcvanzee@gmail.com.

In Step 1 - Argumentation, stakeholders discuss the requirements of their organization. In this process, stakeholders put forward arguments for or against certain
elements of the model (e.g. goals, tasks,..). Arguments about why certain tasks
can contribute to the fulfillment of goals and an evidence to support a claim
are also part of this process. Furthermore, stakeholders can challenge claims byforming counterarguments. The complete set of claims, arguments and counterarguments can be represented in an argument diagram. We have implemented aformal argumentation theory for goal-based reasoning about evidence [4,3] into
the browser-based argument diagramming tool OVA2 [1].
In Step 2 - Translation, the argument diagram is translated to a goal model,
in our case GRL. The process consists of two translations/mappings: the first
generates the GRL elements and relationships, and the second mapping generates the satisfaction values of the GRL elements from the acceptability status ofunderlying arguments. We implemented the translation tool in PHP3 . The tool
requests an argument from the Argument Web, and then generates a GRL modelusing mapping rules. This is exported in XML format, which can be imported
in jUCMNav, an Eclipse based tool for GRL modeling4 . The tool then requests
argument evaluations from TOAST, a tool for evaluating the Dung semantics5 ,and uses this to set the evaluation of the GRL elements.
In Step 3 - Goal Modeling, the goal model that is generated by the Translation
process is evaluated by the stakeholders. These models can be used as a discussion
means to investigate whether the goals in the model are in line with the originalrequirements of the stakeholders. This allows a better rationalization of the goalmodeling process, with a clear traceability from the goals of the organization tothe arguments and evidence that were used in the discussions.
Step 4 - Update involves translating GRL models with its analysis back into
an argument diagram. This falls outside the scope of the current paper.
Future work. It would be interesting to explore the effect of different argumentation semantics on goal models. Moreover, we would like to add the Update stepof our framework in order to automatically translate goal models to argument
diagrams. For this, we see the recent proposal by Mirel and Villata as a usefulstarting point [2].
References[1]Floris Bex, John Lawrence, Mark Snaith, and Chris Reed. Implementing the argumentweb. Communications of the ACM, 56(10):66–73, 2013.
[2] Isabelle Mirbel and Serena Villata. An Argumentation-based Support System for Requirements Reconciliation. In Proceedings of COMMA 2014, pages 467–468, 2014.
[3] Marc van Zee, Floris Bex, and Sepideh Ghanavati. Rationalization of Goal Models in GRL
using Formal Argumentation. In Proceedings of RE:Next! track at RE 2015, 2015.
[4] Marc van Zee and Sepideh Ghanavati. Capturing Evidence and Rationales with Requirements Engineering and Argumentation-Based Techniques. In Proc. of the 26th Benelux
Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), 2014.
2 http://ova.arg-tech.org/
3 http://www.marcvanze.nl/RationalGRL
4 http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/ucm/bin/view/ProjetSEG/WebHome
5 http://toast.arg-tech.org