Improved Processing of Textual Use Cases: Deriving Behavior Specifications

  • Jaroslav Drazan
  • Vladimir Mencl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4362)


The requirements for a system are often specified as textual use cases. Although they are written in natural language, the simple and uniform sentence structure used makes automated processing of use cases feasible. However, the numerous use case approaches vary in the permitted complexity and variations of sentence structure. Frequently, use cases are written in the form of compound sentences describing several actions. While there are methods for analyzing use cases following the very simple SVDPI (subject-verb-direct object ... indirect object) pattern, methods for more complex sentences are still needed. We propose a new method for processing textual requirements based on the scheme earlier described in [13]. The new method allows to process the commonly used complex sentence structures, obtaining more descriptive behavior specifications, which may be used to verify and validate requirements and to derive the initial design of the system.


Noun Phrase Sentence Structure Direct Object Parse Tree Simple Sentence 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blaheta, D., Charniak, E.: Assigning Function Tags to Parsed Text. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of Association for Computational Linguistic, vol. 2, pp. 234–240 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, M.: A New Statistical Parser Based on Bigram Lexical Dependencies. In: Proceedings of ACL 1996, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, pp. 184–191. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drazan, J.: Natural Language Processing of Textual Use Cases. Master’s Thesis, Advisor: Vladimir Mencl, Charles University (Feb. 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Maccari, A.: Application of Linguistic Techniques for Use Case Analysis. In: Proceedings of RE 2002, Essen, Germany, pp. 157–164. IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiedler, M., Francu, J., Ondrusek, J., Plsek, A.: Procasor Environment: Interactive Environment for Requirement Specification. Student Software Project, Supervisor: Mencl, V., Charles University (September 2005),
  7. 7.
    Graham, I.: Object-Oriented Methods: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson, J.C., Brill, E.: Exploiting Diversity in Natural Language Processing: Combining Parsers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-99), College Park, Maryland, USA, pp. 187–194 (June 1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, D., Subramaniam, K., Eberlein, A., Far, B.H.: Automating Transition from Use-Cases to Class Model. In: IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, CCECE 2003 (May 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, D., Subramaniam, K., Eberlein, A., Far, B.H.: Natural Language Requirements Analysis and Class Model Generation Using UCDA. In: Orchard, B., Yang, C., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3029, pp. 295–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacDonell, S.G., Min, K., Connor, A.M.: Autonomous Requirements Specification Processing using Natural Language Processing. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Adaptive Systems and Software Engineering, IASSE05 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mencl, V.: Deriving Behavior Specifications from Textual Use Cases. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Intelligent Technologies for Software Engineering (WITSE04, Part of ASE 2004), Linz, Austria, Oesterreichische Computer Gesellschaft (Sep. 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mencl, V.: Use Cases: Behavior Assembly, Behavior Composition and Reasoning. Ph.D. Thesis, Advisor: Frantisek Plasil (June 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osborne, M., MacNish, C.K.: Processing Natural Language Software Requirement Specifications. In: Proceedings of ICRE’96, Colorado Springs, pp. 229–237. IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Plasil, F., Mencl, V.: Getting “Whole Picture” Behavior in a Use Case Model. Transactions of SDPS: Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 7, 63–79 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plasil, F., Mencl, V.: Use Cases: Assembling “Whole Picture Behavior”. TR 02/11, Dept. of Computer Science, University of New Hampshire, Durham (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plasil, F., Visnovsky, S.: Behavior Protocols for Software Components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(11) (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rational Software Corporation (IBM), Rational Unified Process, version 2003.06.01.06 (2003),
  20. 20.
    Richards, D.: Merging Individual Conceptual Models of Requirements. Requir. Eng. 4, 195–205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards, D., Böttger, K., Aguilera, O.: A Controlled Language to Assist Conversion of Use Case Descriptions into Concept Lattices. In: McKay, B., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) Canadian AI 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2557, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider, G.: Extracting and Using Trace-Free Functional Dependencies from the Penn Treebank to Reduce Parsing Complexity. In: Proceedings of Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT) 2003, Växjö, Sweden, Växjö, pp. 153–164. University Press, New Haven (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stevenson, M.: Extracting Syntactic Relations using Heuristics. In: ESSLLI98 - Workshop on Automated Acquisition of Syntax and Parsing, pp. 248–256 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaroslav Drazan
    • 1
  • Vladimir Mencl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Department of Software Engineering, Distributed Systems Research Group Malostranske namesti 25, 118 00 Prague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.United Nations University International Institute for Software Technology 

Personalised recommendations