Advertisement

Guidelines for NL-Based Requirements Specifications in NIBA

  • Günther Fliedl
  • Christian Kop
  • Willi Mayerthaler
  • Heinrich C. Mayr
  • Christian Winkler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1959)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the linguistic base of standardized sentences as well as their structure and their employment in requirements analysis. Standardized sentences are quite helpful in the automatic analysis of requirements concerning static and dynamic aspects. Since standardized sentences require being filtered out of prose texts, which is a time consuming task we prefer to use standardized sentences in the case of requirements completion. Such completions inevitably emerge in the iterative process of requirements analysis. To enhance the process of requirements analysis we use a special approach called conceptual predesign the results of which are mapped by heuristic rules to conceptual design schemes, e.g. formulated in UML.

Keywords

Requirement Analysis Business Process Modeling External Argument Nominal Phrase Prepositional Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Abraham, W.:“Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich”, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Batini, C.; Ceri, S.; Navathe, S. B.: „Conceptual Database Design”, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Comp., Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Becks, Andreas.; Köller, Jörg.: Automatically Structuring Requirements Scenarios, CREWS Report 99-15.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ben Achour, C.; Rolland, C.; Maiden, N. A. M.; Souveyet, C.: Guiding Use Case Authoring: Results of an Empirical Study. In: 4th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’99), University of Limerick, Ireland, June 7-11 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Booch, G.; Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language-User Guide, Addison Wesley Publ. Comp. 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Ceri, S. (ed.): Methodology and Tools for Database Design. North Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Chen, P.: „English Sentence Structure and Entity Relationship Diagrams.” In Int. Journal of Information Sciences, Vol. 29, 1983. Pp 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Fliedl, G.: Natürlichkeitstheoretische Morphosyntax-Aspekte der Theorie und Implementierung. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Fliedl, G.; Kop, Ch.; Mayr, H.C.; Mayerthaler, W.; Winkler, Ch.: “Linguistic Aspects of Dynamics in Requirements Specifications”, Appears in DEXA Workshop NLIS.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Harel, D.; Gery, E.: Executable Object Modeling with Statecharts. In: IEEE Computer, 30 (7), 1997.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Jones, C.: Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality. Mc Graw Hill, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kaschek, R.; Kohl, C.; Mayr, H. C.: Cooperations-An Abstraction Concept Suitable for Business Process Reengineering. In: Györkös, J.; Kripser, M; Mayr, H.C. (eds).: Conference Proc. ReTIS’95, Re-Technologies for Information Systems, R. Oldenburg Verlag, Wien, München, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kop, Ch.; Mayr, H.C.: Conceptual Predesign-Bridging the Gap between Requirements and Conceptual Design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering. Colorado Springs Colorado, April 6-10, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kristen, G.: Object Orientation-The Kiss Method-From Information Architecture to Information System. Addison Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jacobson, I.; Christerson, M.; Jonsson, P.; Övergaard, G.: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison Wesley Publ. Comp, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Mayerthaler, W.; Fliedl, G.; Winkler, Ch.: Lexikon der Natürlichkeitstheoretischen Syntax und Morphosyntax, Stauffenburg Verlag, Brigitte Narr, Tübingen, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Rumbaugh, J.; Blaha, M.; Premerlani, W.; Eddy, F.; Lorensen, W.: Object oriented modeling modeling and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rolland, C.; Ben Achour, C.: Guiding the Construction of Textual Use Case Specifications. In: Chen, P.; van de Riet, R.P. (eds.): Data & Knowledge Engineering Journal, Vol 25, No 1-2, pp 125–160, North Holland, Elsevier Science Publ. March 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Scheschonk, G. (ed.): Petri-Netze im Einsatz für Entwurf und Entwicklung von Informations-systemen. Informatik Fachbericht, Springer Verlag, September 1993.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Tjoa, A. M.; Berger, L.: Transformation of Requirement Specification Expressed in Natural Language into an EER Model. In: Elmasri, R. A.; Kouramajian, B.; Thalheim, B. (eds.): 12th International Conference on Entity Relationship Approach. Arlington, Texas. New York, Springer 1993. pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Weidenhaupt, K.; Pohl, K.; Jarke, M.; Haumer, P.: Scenario Usage in System Development: A Report on Current Practice. IEEE Software March 1998.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Fliedl, G.: “Head Verb Classes-a comprehensive list”; Technical Report; University of Klagenfurt 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günther Fliedl
    • 1
  • Christian Kop
    • 1
  • Willi Mayerthaler
    • 2
  • Heinrich C. Mayr
    • 2
  • Christian Winkler
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business InformaticsAustria
  2. 2.Department of Computational LinguisticsUniversity KlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations