To access this work you must either be on the Smith College campus OR have valid Smith login credentials.

On Campus users: To access this work if you are on campus please Select the Download button.

Off Campus users: To access this work from off campus, please select the Off-Campus button and enter your Smith username and password when prompted.

Non-Smith users: You may request this item through Interlibrary Loan at your own library.

Publication Date


First Advisor

Alicia M. Grubb

Second Advisor

Jay Garfield

Document Type

Honors Project

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts


Computer Science


Logic, Bilattices, Non-classical logic, Multivalued logic, Goal modeling, Goal graphs, Model merging, BloomingLeaf


Goal modeling is an area of software engineering that allows stakeholders, in domains from software to public planning, to break down their intentions visually and make trade-off decisions. Currently, Grubb et al. are building a web application, BloomingLeaf, that would allow stakeholders to build and to automatically analyze goal models within the Tropos framework. Practical concerns suggest that the best way to allow users to make models large enough to represent most real-world projects is to have them to create smaller submodels that the application automatically merges into a big-picture view. However, the existing merge algorithm is unable to merge information about goal fulfillment in most cases where it differs between submodels.

This project uses the bilattice, a flexible logical formalism introduced by Ginsberg (1986), to propose solutions to the remaining gaps in the model merging algorithm. Bilattices are sets of values with two related orderings, the first ordered by truth vs. falsity (or other dichotomous qualities), and the second by amount of information. The formal syntax BloomingLeaf uses to record the fulfillment of goals is modeled using a nine-element bilattice of hevidence for satisfaction, evidence for deniali pairs. The bilattice structure suggests two uniform approaches to reconcile information from sources that disagree: gullibility (accept everything) and consensus (accept what the sources agree on). The applications portion of this project outlines the results of applying the consensus approach to fulfillment values that differ across models. This strategy produces obvious solutions for most merge cases, and a few promising solutions for the remaining cases.


©2021 Isabel Grace Montesanto. Access limited to the Smith College community and other researchers while on campus. Smith College community members also may access from off-campus using a Smith College log-in. Other off-campus researchers may request a copy through Interlibrary Loan for personal use.




59 pages : illustrations (some color) Includes bibliographical references.