Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Ambiguity in Requirements Engineering

  • Chapter
Engineering and Managing Software Requirements

Abstract

This chapter illustrates that ambiguity is a serious problem of natural language requirements documents, which is not limited to simple language problems such as multiple referents of an “it”. The results of two empirical studies are presented, which indicate that on one hand ambiguity problems are not solved by formalization during further software development activities, and, on the other hand, it is difficult to detect all ambiguities, even if the reader is aware of all the facets of ambiguity. A combination of the results of both studies indicated that most ambiguities that slip through formalization can be detected by a previous inspection using a tailored reading technique. Based on these results, recommendations are made on how to live with the inevitable ambiguity in the RE process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandai (1997) Das Original Tamagotchi Buch. Tamagotchi & Bandai

    Google Scholar 

  2. Basili VR (1997) Evolving and packaging reading technologies. Journal of Systems and Software, 38: 3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry DM, Kamsties E (2003) Ambiguity in requirements specification. In: Perspectives on Software Requirements, Leite J, Doorn J (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Pub., pp.7–44

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davis A, Overmyer S, Jordan K, et al. (1993) Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: Proceedings of METRICS’93, Baltimore, USA, pp.141–152

    Google Scholar 

  5. Denger C, Berry DM, Kamsties E (2003) Higher quality requirements specifications through natural languages patterns. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software: Science, Technology & Engineering, Herzelia, Israel, pp.80–89

    Google Scholar 

  6. El Elmam K, Quintin S, Madhavji NH (1996) User participation in the requirements engineering process: An empirical study, Requirements Engineering Journal, 1(1):4–26

    Google Scholar 

  7. Freedman DP, Weinberg GM (1990) Handbook of walkthroughs inspections and technical reviews, Dorset House, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gause DC, Weinberg GM (1989) Exploring requirements: Quality before design. Dorset House, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gervasi V, Nuseibeh B (2000) Lightweight validation of natural language requirements, In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, June 19–23, Schaumburg, USA, pp. 140–148

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gunter CA, Gunter EL, Jackson M, Zave P (2000) A reference model for requirements and specifications. IEEE Software; 17(3): 37–43

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heitmeyer CL, Jeffords RD, Labaw BG (1996) Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(3): 231–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jackson M, Zave P (1993) Domain descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, January 4–6, San Diego, pp. 89–98

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jarke M, Rolland C, Sutcliffe A, Dömges R (1999) The NATURE of requirements engineering. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kamsties E (2001): Surfacing ambiguity in natural language requirements, Ph.D. Dissertation, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kamsties E, Berry DM, Paech B (2001): Detecting ambiguities in requirements documents using inspections. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering (WISE’01), July 23, Paris, France, pp. 68–80

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kamsties E, von Knethen A, Philipps J, Schätz B (1999) Eine vergleichende Fallstudie mit CASE-Werkzeugen für formale und semi-formale Beschreibungstechniken, Tagungsband des 9. GI/ITG-Fachgesprächs “Formale Beschreibungstechniken für verteilte Systeme”, pp.103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kamsties E, von Knethen A, Philipps J, Schätz B (2004) An empirical investigation of requirements specification languages: Detecting defects while formalizing requirements. In Modelling Methods and Methodologies, Krogstie J, Siau K, Halpin T(Eds.), IDEA Book Group pp.125–147

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kovitz B (2002) Ambiguity and what to do about it. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’02), Essen, Germany, pp.213

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mich L (2001) On the use of ambiguity measures in requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of NLDB’01, June 28–29, Madrid, Spain, pp. 143–152

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mich L, Franch M, Novi Inverardi P (2002) Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. Technical Report 66, University of Trento, http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/view/department/informaticas.html.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mills HD (1988) Stepwise refinement and verification in box-structured systems, IEEE Computer, 21(6): 22–36

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Parnas DL, Asmis GJK, Madey J (1991) Assessment of safety-critical software in nuclear power plants. Nuclear Safety 32(2): 189–198

    Google Scholar 

  23. Poesio AM (1996) Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. Semantic Ambiguity and Under specification, Cambridge Univ. Press, No 55 in CSLI LN, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pohl K (1993) The three dimensions of requirements engineering. Technical report NATURE-92-11, Informatik V, RWTH-Aachen, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robertson S, Robertson J (1999) Mastering the requirements process. Addison-Wesley

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rupp C, Goetz R (2000) Linguistic methods of requirements engineering (NLP), In: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI), 7–11 November, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schneider GM, Martin J Tsai WT (1992) An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1(2): 188–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Requirements engineering — A good practice guide, John Wiley & Sons, UK

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson WM, Rosenberg LH, Hyatt LE (1997) Automated analysis of requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (IASTED), May 17–23, Boston, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Erik Kamsties
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Aybüke Aurum

  2. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Box 520, 372 25, Ronneby, Sweden

    Claes Wohlin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kamsties, E. (2005). Understanding Ambiguity in Requirements Engineering. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-25043-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-28244-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation