ElicitO: A Quality Ontology-Guided NFR Elicitation Tool

  • Taiseera Hazeem Al Balushi
  • Pedro R. Falcone Sampaio
  • Divyesh Dabhi
  • Pericles Loucopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4542)

Abstract

Despite the importance of capturing a precise and complete set of requirements in the requirements engineering stage, there are few tools that adequately support requirements analysis in the process of capturing quality related requirements (non-functional requirements). This paper presents ElicitO, a requirements elicitation tool aimed at empowering requirements analysts with a knowledge repository that helps in the process of capturing precise non-functional requirements (NFRs) specifications during elicitation interviews. The approach is based on the application of functional and non-functional domain ontologies (quality ontologies) to underpin the elicitation activities. The tool is used as a memory aid to structure elicitation interviews, guide requirements analysts with regard to the important quality aspects relating to a class of applications, and support the development of precise requirements based on characteristics and metrics available in quality model standards.

Keywords

non-functional requirements (NFRs) requirements engineering requirements elicitation ontologies tools  Protégé 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brooks, F.: No sliver bullet-Essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saiedian, H., Dale, R.: Requirements engineering: making the connection between the software developer and customer. Information and Software Technology 42(6), 419–428 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEEE Std 830-1998 IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azuma, M.: Applying ISO/IEC 9126-1 Quality Model to Quality Requirements Engineering on Critical Software. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for High Assurance Systems. Kyoto, Japan (2004) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordewisch, R., et al.: Non-Functional Aspects: Systems Performance Evaluation. In: Thome, B. (ed.) Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice of Computer-Based Systems Engineering, pp. 223–271. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., et al.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Norwell, Massachusetts. 472 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wood, J., Silver, D.: Joint Application Development. Wiley, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, K., et al.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Software Engineering Institute. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Pittsburgh, PA (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mullery, G.P.: CORE: A method for controlled requirements specification. In: Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holbrook, H.I.: Scenario-based methodology for conducting requirements elicitation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 15(1), 95–104 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maiden, N.A.M.: CREWS-SAVRE: Scenarios for Acquiring and Validating Requirements. Automated Software Engineering 5(4), 419–446 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutcliffe, A., et al.: Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12), 1072–1088 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kassel, N.W., Malloy, B.A.: An Approach to Automate Requirements Elicitation and Specification. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications. Marina Del Rey, CA, USA (2003) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing, in Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer, The Netherlands (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fikes, R., Farquhar, A.: Distributed repositories of highly expressive reusable ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(2), 73–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Fellbaum, C.: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uschold, M., et al.: The Enterprise Ontology. AIAI, The University of Edinburgh (1997) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    AlBalushi, T., et al.: Performing Requirements Elicitation Activities Supported by Quality Ontologies. In: Eighteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. San Francisco, Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School (2006) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, H.M., Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: An ontology of quality for enterprise modeling. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (1995) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qurator (2005), http://www.qurator.org
  22. 22.
    Dobson, G., Lock, R., Sommerville, I.: Quality of Service Requirements Specification using an Ontology. In: Proc. Workshop on Service-Oriented Computing Requirements (SOCCER) Paris (2005) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Falbo, R.A., Menezes, C.S., Rocha, A.R.C.: A Systematic Approach for Building Ontologies. In: Coelho, H. (ed.) IBERAMIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1484, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001 Software engineering –Product quality – Part 1: Quality model. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Object Management Group. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification. Version 1.1. January 2005, Technical Report 05-01-06,OMG (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Protege, The Protege Project (2000), http://protege.stanford.edu
  27. 27.
    McGuinness, D.L., Harmelen, F.v.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (2004) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knublauch, H., et al.: The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications. In: Third International Semantic Web Conference. Hiroshima, Japan (2004) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesely, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carvallo, J.P., et al.: QM: A Tool for Building Software Quality Models. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference of Requirements Engineering 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Kyoto, Japan (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bhatti, S.: Why Quality?ISO 9126 Software Quality Metrics (Functionality) Support by UML Suite. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(2), 1–5 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cote, M., et al.: The Evolution Path for Industrial Software Quality Evaluation Methods Applying ISO/IEC 9126:2001 Quality Model: Example of MITRE’s SQAE Method. Software Quality Journal 31(1), 17–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Firesmith, D.: Using Quality Models to Engineer Quality Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 2(5), 67–75 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Doerr, J., et al.: Non-functional requirements in industry - three case studies adopting an experience-based NFR method. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hayatt, L., Rosenberg, L.: A Software Quality Model and Metrics for Identifying Project Risks and Assessing Software Quality. In: 8th Annual Software Technology Conference. Utah (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cox, J., Dale, B.G.: Service quality and e-commerce: An exploratory analysis. Managing Service Quality 11(2), 121–131 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Webb, H.W., Webb, L.A.: SiteQual: an integrated measure of Web site quality. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 17(6), 430–440 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olsina, L., Rossi, G.: Measuring Web application quality with WebQEM. Multimedia, IEEE 9(4), 20–29 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nielsen, J.: Designing Web Usability: the practice of simplicity. New Riders Publishing (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Firesmith, D.: Engineering Security Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 2(1), 53–68 (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. 7th edn. Essex, England, Pearson Education Limited (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taiseera Hazeem Al Balushi
    • 1
  • Pedro R. Falcone Sampaio
    • 1
  • Divyesh Dabhi
    • 1
  • Pericles Loucopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Informatics, University of Manchester, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QDUK

Personalised recommendations