A Method for Capturing and Reconciling Stakeholder Intentions Based on the Formal Concept Analysis - Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering - page 156

Attributes (M)

Object (G) Productivity Cost Technology Usability

Manager X X

IT Dep. X X X

End User X X

Developer X X

(a) Concept Table

({Manager, IT Dep.,
End User, Developer}, f)

C 11

({Manager, IT Dep.,
Developer}, Cost )

({Manager, IT Dep.,
End User}, Productivity )

C 21 C 22

({IT Dep., Developer}
{ Cost, Technology })

C 31

C 32

({Manager, IT Dep.}
{ Productivity, Cost })

(IT Dep., { Productivity,
Cost, Technology })
(f, { Productivity , Cost,
Technology, Usability })

C 41

C 51
(b) Concept Lattice in Hasse Diagram

Fig. 1 Context table and context lattice

With the abovementioned procedure, the elements of attributes are incrementally
added from top to bottom, while the elements of objects are added from bottom to
top. Note that the commonality of attributes among the object, that is a subconcept-
subconcept relation defined by (1), defines the order of object. As a result, the
concept lattice can structure the objects into a lattice. Although the edge of the
concept lattice is not associated with an arrow in general, the edge is directed with
the order relation by the definition of lattice.

4.2 Goal Lattice

We define the goal lattice by semantically extending the FCA. Tables 1 and 2 define
the goal lattice and the mapping between the FCA and goal lattice.

Definition 3: Goal Lattice
A goal lattice by a complete lattice of Context K with the order relation; L

= ß

(K) ) with the infimum and supremum.

To structure the relationship among goals, sub-goals and stakeholders, we assign
both sub-goals and stakeholders to attributes. As a special case, a goal may have
only one sub-goal. In this chapter, we call such a sub-goal as an inner goal.

= ß(G, (S, H), I), where ß (K): = (ß(K), ≤