Advertisement

Critical Non-functional Requirements Modeling Profiler with Meta-Model Semantics

  • Mahesh R. DubeEmail author
Conference paper
  • 10 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1101)

Abstract

The system is defined in multiple ways by various engineering and business domains which is an organized set of elements with capabilities that are integrated and interoperable. Every system has a scope and mission-criticality which is determined by user-stakeholder agreement based on both functional and non-functional requirements. The profiling and modeling of requirements are possible at structural levels by making use of Unified Modeling Language (UML). The proposed framework is organized by a meta-model and notation base for modeling critical non-functional requirements. There is a possibility of capabilities overlap and redundancy if the components to be developed are not unique causing an irregular and useless repository of components fulfilling requirements. The model transformations can be performed using a model transformation language that generates target model from source model with the help of transformation rules. The proposed framework focuses on theory of model generation with incorporation of notations to represent a set of critical non-functional requirements.

Keywords

Unified Modeling Language Model-driven engineering Meta-model Non-functional requirement 

References

  1. 1.
    Jarke, M., and K. Pohl. 1994. Requirements engineering in 2001: (virtually) managing a changing reality. Software Engineering Journal 257–266.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Easterbrook, S., R. Lutz, R. Covington, J. Kelly, Y. Ampo, and D. Hamilton. 1998. Experiences using lightweight formal methods for requirements modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24 (1): 04–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kotonya, G., and I. Sommerville. 1996. Requirements engineering with viewpoints. Software Engineering Journal 05–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamsweerde, A., D. Robert, and L. Emmanuel. 1998. Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24 (11): 908–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamsweerde, A., and E. Letier. 2000. Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26 (10): 978–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mylopoulos, J., L. Chung, and B. Nixon. 1992. Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18 (6): 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cysneiros, L., and J. Leite. 2004. Nonfunctional requirements: from elicitation to conceptual models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30 (5): 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gregoriades, A., and A. Sutcliffe. 2005. Scenario-based assessment of nonfunctional requirements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31 (5): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balasubramaniam, R., and M. Jarke. 2001. Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27 (1): 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, E., and J. Sztipanovits. 2009. Formalizing the structural semantics of domain-specific modeling languages. Journal of Software and System Model 8: 451–478. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thalheim, B., K.D. Schewe, and H. Ma. 2009. Conceptual application domain modeling. In Proc. Sixth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2009), Wellington, New Zealand. CRPIT, vol. 96, 49–57.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. 2010. Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Superstructure. Version 2.3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. 2010. Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Infrastructure. Version 2.3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification OMG Specification. 2006. Version 2.0.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Constraint Language. 2010. OMG Specification. Version 2.2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nugroho, A. 2009. Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: a controlled experiment. Journal of Information and Software Technology 51: 1670–1685.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aburub, F., M. Odeh, and I. Beeson. 2007. Modelling non-functional requirements of business processes. Information and Software Technology 49: 1162–1171.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mens, T., and P. Gorp. 2006. A taxonomy of model transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 152: 125–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringVishwakarma Institute of TechnologyPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations