Advertisement

Semantic Support for Scenarios to Improve Communication in Agribusiness

  • Leandro AntonelliEmail author
  • Diego Torres
  • Mariángeles Hozikian
  • Jorge E. Hernandez
Conference paper
  • 309 Downloads
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 568)

Abstract

Organizations produce and exchange a huge amount of critical information, which main purpose is to obtain acceptable results. Hence, the trend is by considering integrated systems that can be easily adapted to several domains, especially when they need to exchange information. In this context, the agribusiness sector is a good example where massive data is generated, which implies the need for information sharing and collaboration, where the great challenged is support and understand the colliding context. However, every software system relies on its context, with its own rules, dynamism, and languages. Hence, it implies a significant effort to have a complete understanding of the composed domain. For this purpose, scenarios are well-known tools to describe dynamic domains and are commonly described under text-based context. When different stakeholders build Scenarios, it is essential to review them in order to unify their description. Thus, Scenarios under this unified perspective will better support the analysis and identification of relationship between two or more domains. This analysis is the key to design mechanisms to exchange information. Therefore, in the light of this, this paper proposes a semantic definition of Scenarios and a set of queries to identify issues in the Scenarios and improve their quality. In addition to this, a wiki platform to implement the semantic support and the queries is also provided.

Keywords:

Agribusiness Requirements Scenarios Ontologies 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by Agroknowledge and Ruc-Aps, a H2020 RISE-2015 project, aiming at Enhancing and implementing Knowledge based ICT solutions within high Risk and Uncertain Conditions for Agriculture Production Systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhatia, M.P.S., Kumar, A., Beniwal, R.: Ontology based framework for detecting ambiguities in software requirements specification. In: 3rd INDIACom, New Delhi. pp. 3572–3575 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll, J.M.: Five reasons for scenario-based design. In: Interacting with Computers, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 43–60 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0953-5438(00)00023-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dzung, D.V., Ohnishi, A.: Improvement of quality of software requirements with requirements ontology. In: 9th ICQS, Jeju, pp. 284–289 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1109/qsic.2009.44
  4. 4.
    Ge, C., Yu, S., Yang, G., Wang, W.: A collaborative requirements elicitation approach based on scenario. In: 10th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design, Wenzhou, pp. 2213–2216 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1109/caidcd.2009.5375171
  5. 5.
    Ilyas, M., Khan, S.U.: An empirical investigation of the software integration success factors in GSD environment. In 15th SERA, London, pp. 255–262 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kummler, P.S., Vernisse, L., Fromm, H.: How good are my requirements?: A new perspective on the quality measurement of textual requirements. In: 11th QUATIC, Coimbra, pp. 156–159 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/quatic.2018.00031
  7. 7.
    do Prado Leite, J.C., et al.: Enhancing a requirements baseline with scenarios. Requirements Eng. 2(4) 184–198 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1109/isre.1997.566841
  8. 8.
    McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation 10(10) (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Potts, C.: Using schematic scenarios to understand user needs. In: 1st Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramasubbu, N., Kemerer, C.F.: Managing technical debt in enterprise software packages. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40–8, 758–772 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sarmiento, E., do Prado Leite, J.C., Almentero, E.: Using correctness, consistency, and completeness patterns for automated scenarios verification. In: 5th RePa, pp. 47–54 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shunxin, L., Leijun, S.: Requirements engineering based on domain ontology. In: 2010 International Conference of Information Science and Management Engineering, Xi’an, pp. 120–122 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/isme.2010.110
  14. 14.
    Tan, L., Haley, R., Wortman, R., Zhang, Q.: An extensible and integrated software architecture for data analysis and visualization in precision agriculture. In: 13th IRI, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 271–278 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/iri.2012.6303020
  15. 15.
    Zait, F., Zarour, N.: Addressing lexical and semantic ambiguity in natural language requirements. In: Fifth ISIICT, Amman. pp. 1–7 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/isiict.2018.8613726

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro Antonelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diego Torres
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mariángeles Hozikian
    • 1
  • Jorge E. Hernandez
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Lifia – Facultad de InformaticaUniversidad Nacional de La PlataLa PlataArgentina
  2. 2.CICPBA – Comision de Investigaciones Cientificas de la Provincia de BsAsTolosaArgentina
  3. 3.Departamento de Ciencia y TecnologiaUniversidad de Nacional de QuilmesBernalArgentina
  4. 4.School of ManagementUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom
  5. 5.TemucoChile

Personalised recommendations