Advertisement

Requirements engineering: An integrated view of representation, process, and domain

  • Matthias Jarke
  • Klaus Pohl
  • Stephan Jacobs
  • Janis Bubenko
  • Petia Assenova
  • Peter Holm
  • Benkt Wangler
  • Colette Rolland
  • Veronique Plihon
  • Jean -Roch Schmitt
  • Alistair Sutcliffe
  • Sara Jones
  • Neil Maiden
  • David Till
  • Yannis Vassiliou
  • Panos Constantopoulos
  • Giorgios Spanoudakis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 717)

Abstract

Reuse, system integration, and interoperability create a growing need for capturing, representing, and using application-level information about software-intensive systems and their evolution. In ESPRIT Basic Research Project NATURE, we are developing an integrative approach to requirements management based on a three-dimensional framework which addresses formalism as well as cognitive and social aspects. This leads to a new requirements process model which integrates human freedoms through allowing relatively free decisions in given situations. Classes of situations and decisions are defined with respect to the three-dimensional framework through the integration of informal and formal representations, theories of domain modeling, and the explicit consideration of nonfunctional requirements in teamwork. Technical support is provided by a conceptual modeling environment with knowledge acquisition through interactive as well as reverse modeling, and with similarity-based querying.

Keywords

Requirement Engineering Requirement Engineer Domain Theory Reverse Modeling Knowledge Representation Language 
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. [AHTo90]
    Akman, V.; ten Hagen, P.J.W. and Tomiyama, T.: A Fundamental and Theoretical Framework for an Intelligent CAD System; Computer Aided Design 22, 6, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [Ande90]
    Anderson, J.R.: The Adaptive Character of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [Balz91]
    Balzer, R.: Tolerating Inconsistency; Proc. 13th ICSE, Austin 1991, 158–165.Google Scholar
  4. [BiRi87]
    Biggerstaff, T. and Richter, C.: Reusability framework, assessment and directions; IEEE Software, March 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [BGMy85]
    Borgida, A.; Greenspan, S.J. and Mylopoulos, J.: Knowledge Representation as the Basis for Requirements Specification; IEEE Computer, April 1985, 82–91.Google Scholar
  6. [Boeh88]
    Boehm, B.W.: A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement; IEEE Computer 21.Google Scholar
  7. [BNP*91]
    Brian, P.M.; Niezette, M.; Pantatzis, D., Seltveit, A.H.; Sundin, U.; Theodolidis, B.; Tziallas, M.G. and Wohed, R.: A Rule Language to Capture and Model Business Policy Specifications; Proc. CAiSE 1991, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  8. [CJMV92]
    Constantopoulos, P., Jarke, M.; Mylopoulos, J. and Vassiliou, Y.: Software Information Base: A server for reuse; ITHACA-Report, ICS-FORTH, Heraclion 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [CoBe88]
    Conklin J. and Begeman M.L.: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion; ACM Trans. Office Information Systems 6, 4, 1988, 140–151Google Scholar
  10. [CoKj87]
    Cohen, P. and Kjeldsen, R.: Information Retrieval by Constrained Spreading Activation in Semantic Networks; Inf. Processing and Management, 23, 4, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [DFLa91]
    Dardenne, A.; Fickas, S. and van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Directed Concept Acquisition in Requirements Elicitation; Proc. 6th IEEE IWSSD, Como, Italy, 1991, 14–21.Google Scholar
  12. [Dows87]
    Dowson, M.: Iteration in the Software Process; Proc. 9th ICSE, Monterey 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [EhJa91]
    Eherer, S. and Jarke, M.: Knowledge Base Support for Hypermedia Co-Authoring; Proc. Database and Expert Systems Applications, Berlin, 1991, 465–470.Google Scholar
  14. [FeFi91]
    Feather, M. and Fickas, S.: Coping with Requirements Freedom; Proc. Intl. Workshop Development of Intelligent Information Systems, Canada, 1991, 42–46.Google Scholar
  15. [FKGo90]
    Finkelstein, A.; Kramer, J. and Goedicke, M.: Viewpoint-Oriented Software Development; Proc. Conf Le Génie Logiciel et ses Applications, 1990, 337–351.Google Scholar
  16. [Gent83]
    Gentner, D.: Structure Mapping: a Theoretical Framework for Analogy; Cognitive Science 5, 1983, 121–152.Google Scholar
  17. [GiHo83]
    Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J.: Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer; Cognitive Psychology 15, 1983, 1–38.Google Scholar
  18. [Gree84]
    Greenspan, S.J.: Requirements modeling: A Knowledge Representation Approach to Software Requirements Definition. Univ. Toronto, Tech.Report. CSRG 155, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. [Grei88]
    Greiner, R.: Abstraction-based Analogical Inference, in Analogical Reasoning; D.H. Helman (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988, 147–170.Google Scholar
  20. [GrRo90]
    Grosz, G. and Rolland, C.: Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Formalize the Information System Design Process; Proc. DEXA, Vienna 1990, 374–380.Google Scholar
  21. [GuCu88]
    Guindon, R. and Curtis, B.: Control of Cognitive Processes During Software Design: What Tools are Needed? Proc. ACM-CHI, 1988, 263–269.Google Scholar
  22. [Guin90]
    Guindon, R.: Designing the Design Process: Exploiting Opportunistic Thoughts; Human-Computer Interaction Journal 5, 1990, 305–344.Google Scholar
  23. [Hage88]
    Hagelstein, J.: Declarative Approach to Information Systems Requirements; Knowledge Based Systems, 1, 4, 1988, 211–220.Google Scholar
  24. [HeEd90]
    Henderson-Sellers, B., and Edwards, J.M.: The Object-Oriented Systems Life Cycle; Comm. ACM, Sept. 1990.Google Scholar
  25. [HJRo91]
    Hahn, U.; Jarke, M. and Rose, T.: Teamwork Support in a Knowledge-Based Information Systems Environment; IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 17,5, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [JaPo93]
    Jarke, M. and Pohl, K.: Establishing Visions in Context: Towards a Model of Requirements Processes; Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  27. [Jark92]
    Jarke, M., ed.: ConceptBase V3.1 User Manual; Aachener Inf.Berichte 92–17, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [Jark93]
    Jarke, M., ed.: Database Application Engineering with DAIDA, Springer 1993.Google Scholar
  29. [Jeus92]
    Jeusfeld, M.: Änderungskontrolle in Deduktiven Objektbanken; DISKI Volume 17, Bad Honnef, Germany: INFIX Publ. (Diss. Univ. Passau, in German)Google Scholar
  30. [JJP*92]
    Jarke M., et.al.: NATURE: Initial Integration Report; RWTH-Aachen, 1992.Google Scholar
  31. [JJWS88]
    Johnson, P.; Johnson, H.; Waddington, R. and Shouls, A.: Task-related Knowledge Structures: Analysis, Modelling and Application; Proc. HCI '88, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 35–61.Google Scholar
  32. [JoHa90]
    Johnson L., Harris D.: The ARIES project; Proc. 5th KBSA, Liverpool, 121–131Google Scholar
  33. [Kalm91]
    Kalman, K.: Implementation and Critique of an Algorithm which Maps a Relational Database to a Conceptual Model; Proc. CAiSE, Springer, 1991, 393–415.Google Scholar
  34. [Luba88]
    Lubars, M.D.: A domain modeling representation; MCC Technical Report STP-366-88, Austin, Tx, Nov., 1988.Google Scholar
  35. [Maid92]
    Maiden, N.: Analogical Specification Reuse during Requirements Analysis; Ph.D. Thesis, City Univ. London, 1992.Google Scholar
  36. [MaSu92]
    Maiden, N. and Sutcliffe, A.: Exploiting Reusable Specifications through Analogy. Comm. ACM 35, 4, 1992, 55–64.Google Scholar
  37. [MaSu93]
    Maiden, N. and Sutcliffe, A.: Requirements engineering by Example: An Empirical Study; Proc. Intl. Symp. Requirements Engineering, San Diego, 1993.Google Scholar
  38. [MBJK90]
    Mylopoulos, J.; Borgida, A.; Jarke, M. and Koubarakis, M.: Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems; ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 8, 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  39. [Pern90]
    Pernici, B.: Objects with Roles; Proc. ACM COIS, Cambridge, Mass, 1990, 205215.Google Scholar
  40. [Pohl93]
    Pohl, K.: The Three Dimensions of Requirements Engineering; Proc. of the CAiSE Conference, 8–11 June, Paris, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  41. [PoJa92]
    Pohl, K. and Jarke, M.: Quality Information Systems: Repository Support for Evolving Process Models; Aachener Informatik-Projekte 92–36.Google Scholar
  42. [Pott89]
    Potts, C: A Generic Model for Representing Design Methods; Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. Software Engineering, Pittsburgh, 1989.Google Scholar
  43. [PTP*88]
    Punchello, P.P.; Torrigiani, P.; Pietri, F.; Burion, R.; Cardile, B. and Conit, M.: ASPIS: A Knowledge-Based CASE Environment; IEEE Software, March1988.Google Scholar
  44. [RaDa92]
    Ramesh, B., Dhar, V. Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations during Requirements Engineering; IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 18, 6, 498–510.Google Scholar
  45. [ReWa91]
    Reubenstein, H.B. and Waters, R.C.: The Requirements Apprentice: Automated Assistance for Requirements Acquisition; IEEE TSE, March 1991, p. 226–240.Google Scholar
  46. [RJG*91]
    Rose, T.; Jarke, M.; Gocek, M.; Maltzahn, C. and Nissen, H.: A Decision-Based Configuration Process Environment; Software Engineering Journal 6, 5, 1991.Google Scholar
  47. [Rosc91]
    Rosch, E.: Prototype classification and logical classification; In Scholnick (ed.): New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory? LEA 1991Google Scholar
  48. [Royc70]
    Royce, W.W.; Managing the Development of Large Software Systems; Proc. IEEE WESCON, 1970.Google Scholar
  49. [Scha82]
    Schank, R.C.: Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in People and Computers; Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  50. [Sjöb72]
    Sjöberg, L.: A Cognitive Theory of Similarity; Goteborg Psych. Rep. 2, 10, 1972.Google Scholar
  51. [SpCo93]
    Spanoudakis, G. and Constantopoulos P.: Similarity For Analogical Software Reuse: A Conceptual Modelling Approach; Proc. CAiSE, Paris 1993.Google Scholar
  52. [TaWa90]
    Talldal, B. and Wangler, B.: Extracting a Conceptual Model from Examples of Filled In Forms. In N. Prakash (ed.), Data Management: Current Trends; New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1990, 327–358.Google Scholar
  53. [Tver77]
    Tversky, A.: Features of Similarity; Psychological Review, 44(4), July 1977.Google Scholar
  54. [VJTr92]
    Vessey, I., Järvenpaa, S.I. and Tractinsky, N.: Evaluation of Vendor Products: CASE Tools as Methodology Companions; Comm. ACM 35, 4, 1992, 90–105.Google Scholar
  55. [WiFl86]
    Winograd, T. and Flores F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design; Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1986.Google Scholar
  56. [Wing90]
    Wing J.: A specifier's introduction to formal methods; IEEE Computer 23, 9, 8–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Jarke
    • 1
  • Klaus Pohl
    • 1
  • Stephan Jacobs
    • 1
  • Janis Bubenko
    • 2
  • Petia Assenova
    • 2
  • Peter Holm
    • 2
  • Benkt Wangler
    • 2
  • Colette Rolland
    • 3
  • Veronique Plihon
    • 3
  • Jean -Roch Schmitt
    • 3
  • Alistair Sutcliffe
    • 4
  • Sara Jones
    • 4
  • Neil Maiden
    • 4
  • David Till
    • 4
  • Yannis Vassiliou
    • 5
  • Panos Constantopoulos
    • 5
  • Giorgios Spanoudakis
    • 5
  1. 1.Informatik VRWTH AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.SISU-ISEKistaSweden
  3. 3.Universite Paris 1ParisFrance
  4. 4.Business Comp.City UniversityLondonUK
  5. 5.ICS-FORTHHeraclionGreece

Personalised recommendations