Advertisement

Modeling Regulatory Ambiguities for Requirements Analysis

  • Aaron K. Massey
  • Eric Holtgrefe
  • Sepideh Ghanavati
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10650)

Abstract

Lawyers and policy makers regularly and intentionally use ambiguous language in laws, regulations, and other legal texts. Although ambiguity has important policy benefits, such as interpretive resilience in an ever-changing world, it frustrates engineers and businesses seeking to build software systems that are demonstratively compliant with legal obligations. In this vision paper, we propose a method for modeling legal texts alongside models of software requirements or design artifacts. Our approach allows engineers to reason about regulatory ambiguity separately from their system under development and then trace interpretive decisions made about the legal text to affected requirements models. When a regulation is updated or case law demands a new interpretation of a regulation, engineers can evaluate the effect of the changes on the current design and respond appropriately. Inspired by User Requirements Notation, our proposed method can be implemented as an extension to Legal-GRL.

Keywords

Requirements engineering Ambiguity modeling Regulatory compliance 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Amyot, D., Ghanavati, S., Horkoff, J., Mussbacher, G., Peyton, L., Yu, E.: Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(8), 841–877 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amyot, D., Horkoff, J., Gross, D., Mussbacher, G.: A lightweight GRL profile for i* modeling. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 254–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04947-7_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amyot, D., et al.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatia, J., Breaux, T.D., Reidenberg, J.R., Norton, T.B.: A theory of vagueness and privacy risk perception. In: 24th International RE Conference, Beijing, China, September 2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buhr, R., Casselman, R.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghanavati, S.: Legal-URN Framework for Legal Compliance of Business Processes. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon, D.G., Breaux, T.D.: Reconciling multi-jurisdictional legal requirements: a case study in requirements water marking. In: 20th IEEE International RE Conference, pp. 91–100, September 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITU-T. User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition. Technical Report ITU-T Z.151, ITU-T, October 2012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massey, A.K., Otto, P.N., Antón, A.I.: Evaluating legal implementation readiness decision-making. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(6), 545–564 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massey, A.K., Otto, P.N., Hayward, L.J., Antón, A.I.: Evaluating existing security and privacy requirements for legal compliance. Requir. Eng. 15, 119–137 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Antón, A.I., Hemmings, J.D., Swire, P.P.: A strategy for addressing ambiguity in regulatory requirements. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/54573 (2015)
  13. 13.
    Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Antón, A.I., Swire, P.P.: Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. In: 22nd International Conference on RE, pp. 83–92, August 2014Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nigam, A., Arya, N., Nigam, B., Jain, D.: Tool for automatic discovery of ambiguity in requirements. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(5) (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osborne, M., MacNish, C.K.: Processing natural language software requirement specifications. In: 2nd International Conference on RE, pp. 229–236, April 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Otto, P.N., Antón, A.I.: Addressing legal requirements in RE. In: 2007 15th IEEE International RE Conference, RE 2007, pp. 5–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popescu, D., Rugaber, S., Medvidovic, N., Berry, D.M.: Reducing ambiguities in requirements specifications via automatically created object-oriented models. In: Paech, B., Martell, C. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2007. LNCS, vol. 5320, pp. 103–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89778-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Umber, A., Bajwa, I.S.: Minimizing ambiguity in natural language software requirements specification. In: 2011 Sixth International Conference on Digital Information Management, pp. 102–107, September 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Bussel, D.: Detecting ambiguity in requirements specifications. PhD thesis, Tilburg University (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron K. Massey
    • 1
  • Eric Holtgrefe
    • 1
  • Sepideh Ghanavati
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations