Formal Rule Representation and Verification from Natural Language Requirements Using an Ontology

  • Driss Sadoun
  • Catherine Dubois
  • Yacine Ghamri-Doudane
  • Brigitte Grau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8620)


The development of a system is usually based on shared and accepted requirements. Hence, to be largely understood by the stakeholders, requirements are often written in natural language (NL). However, checking requirements completeness and consistency requires having them in a formal form. In this article, we focus on user requirements describing a system behaviour, i.e. its behavioural rules. We show how to transform behavioural rules identified from NL requirements and represented within an OWL ontology into the formal specification language Maude. The OWL ontology represents the generic behaviour of a system and allow us to bridge the gap between informal and formal languages and to automate the transformation of NL rules into a Maude specification.


Knowledge representation OWL ontology NL requirements formal verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bajwa, I.S., Bordbar, B., Lee, M., Anastasakis, K.: Nl2alloy: A tool to generate alloy from nl constraints. JDIM 10(6) (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Hendrix, J., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Ölveczky, P.C.: The maude formal tool environment. In: Mossakowski, T., Montanari, U., Haveraaen, M. (eds.) CALCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4624, pp. 173–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durán, F., Gogolla, M., Roldán, M.: Tracing properties of uml and ocl models with maude. In: AMMSE (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eker, S., Meseguer, J., Sridharanarayanan, A.: The maude {LTL} model checker. ENTCS 71, 162–187 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guissé, A., Lévy, F., Nazarenko, A.: From regulatory texts to brms: how to guide the acquisition of business rules? In: Bikakis, A., Giurca, A. (eds.) RuleML 2012. LNCS, vol. 7438, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karpovic, J., Nemuraite, L., Stankeviciene, M.: Requirements for semantic business vocabularies and rules for transforming them into consistent owl2 ontologies. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Butkiene, R. (eds.) ICIST 2012. CCIS, vol. 319, pp. 420–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Njonko, P., El Abed, W.: From natural language business requirements to executable models via sbvr. In: ICSAI (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sadoun, D., Dubois, C., Ghamri-Doudane, Y., Grau, B.: From natural language requirements to formal specification using an ontology. In: ICTAI (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selway, M., Grossmann, G., Mayer, W., Stumptner, M.: Formalising natural language specifications using a cognitive linguistics/configuration based approach. In: EDOC, pp. 59–68 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sukys, A., Nemuraite, L., Paradauskas, B., Sinkevicius, E.: Transformation framework for sbvr based semantic queries in business information systems. In: BUSTECH, pp. 19–24 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Driss Sadoun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catherine Dubois
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yacine Ghamri-Doudane
    • 5
  • Brigitte Grau
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.LIMSI/CNRSFrance
  2. 2.University Paris-SudFrance
  3. 3.ENSIIEFrance
  4. 4.CEDRIC/CNAMFrance
  5. 5.University of La Rochelle/L3i LabFrance

Personalised recommendations