Supporting Use-Case Reviews

  • Alicja Ciemniewska
  • Jakub Jurkiewicz
  • Łukasz Olek
  • Jerzy Nawrocki
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4439)

Abstract

Use cases are a popular way of specifying functional requirements of computer-based systems. Each use case contains a sequence of steps which are described with a natural language. Use cases, as any other description of functional requirements, must go through a review process to check their quality. The problem is that such reviews are time consuming. Moreover, effectiveness of a review depends on quality of the submitted document - if a document contains many easy-to-detect defects, then reviewers tend to find those simple defects and they feel exempted from working hard to detect difficult defects. To solve the problem it is proposed to augment a requirements management tool with a detector that would find easy-to-detect defects automatically.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adolph, S., et al.: Patterns for Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein, D., Manning, C.: Fast Exact Inference with a Factored Model for Natural Language Parsing. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 15th edn. (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambriola, V., Gervasi, V.: Processing natural language requirements. In: Automated Software Engineering, pp. 36–45. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997), citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ambriola97processing.html Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constantine, L.L., Lockwood, L.A.D.: Software for use: a practical guide to the models and methods of usage-centered design. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., Manning, C.D.: Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: LREC (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabbrini, F., et al.: The linguistic approach to the natural language requirements quality: benefit of the use of an automatic tool. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual NASA Goddard Software Engineering Workshop, pp. 97–105 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fantechi, A., et al.: Application of linguistic techniques for use case analysis. In: RE ’02: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 157–164. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M., et al.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huzar, Z., Łabuzek, M.: A tool assisting creation of business models. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 27(4), 227–238 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEEE. Ieee standard for software reviews (ieee std 1028-1997) (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, I.: Use cases - yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Technical report, Rational Software (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson, I.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamsties, E., Peach, B.: Taming ambiguity in natural language requirements. In: ICSSEA, Paris (December 2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knight, J.C., Myers, E.A.: An improved inspection technique. Commun. ACM 36(11), 51–61 (1993), doi:10.1145/163359.163366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kroll, P., Kruchten, P.: The rational unified process made easy: a practitioner’s guide to the RUP. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macias, B., Pulman, S.G.: Natural language processing for requirement specifications. In: Safety Critical Systems, Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mich, L., Garigliano, R.: Ambiguity measures in requirement engineering. In: Int. Conf. On Software Theory and Practice, Beijing, China (August 2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nawrocki, J., et al.: Balancing agility and discipline with xprince. In: Guelfi, N., Savidis, A. (eds.) RISE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3943, pp. 266–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nawrocki, J., Olek, Ł.: Uc workbench - a tool for writing use cases. In: Baumeister, H., Marchesi, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) XP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3556, pp. 230–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawrocki, J., Olek, Ł.: Use-cases engineering with uc workbench. In: Zieliński, K., Szmuc, T. (eds.) Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 130, pp. 319–329. IOS Press, Amsterdam (Oct. 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pressman, R.: Software Engineering - A Practitioners Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson, W.M., Rosenberg, L.H., Hyatt, L.E.: Automated analysis of requirement specifications. In: Proceedings of the 1997 (19th) International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 161–171 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Łabuzek, M.: Modelling the meaning of descriptions of reality to improve consistency between them and business models. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 29(1-2), 89–101 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicja Ciemniewska
    • 1
  • Jakub Jurkiewicz
    • 1
  • Łukasz Olek
    • 1
  • Jerzy Nawrocki
    • 1
  1. 1.Poznañ University of Technology, Institute of Computing Science, ul. Piotrowo 3A, 60-965 PoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations