Advertisement

Requirements Management with Semantic Technology: An Empirical Study on Automated Requirements Categorization and Conflict Analysis

  • Thomas Moser
  • Dietmar Winkler
  • Matthias Heindl
  • Stefan Biffl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

Requirements managers aim at keeping the set of requirements consistent and up to date throughout the project by conducting the following tasks: requirements categorization, requirements conflict analysis, and requirements tracing. However, the manual conduct of these tasks takes significant effort and is error-prone. In this paper we propose to use semantic technology as foundation for automating the requirements management tasks and introduce the ontology-based reporting approach OntRep. We evaluate the effectiveness and effort the OntRep approach based on a real-world industrial empirical study with professional Austrian IT project managers. Major results were that OntRep provides reasonable capabilities for the automated categorization of requirements, was when compared to a manual approach considerably more effective to identify conflicts, and produced less false positives with similar effort.

Keywords

Requirements categorization requirements conflict analysis consistency checking requirements tracing case study empirical evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying Quality-Requirement Conflicts. IEEE Software (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Briggs, R.O., Grünbacher, P.: EasyWinWin: Managing Complexity in Requirements Negotiation with GSS. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choi, F.Y.Y.: Advances in domain independent linear text segmentation. In: Proceedings of the 1st North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Seattle (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Zemont, G., Kukasik, W.: A Heterogeneous Solution for Improving the Return on Investment of Requirements Traceability. In: 12th IEEE Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cruz, I.R., Huiyong, X., Feihong, H.: An ontology-based framework for XML semantic integration. In: International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS 2004), pp. 217–226. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egyed, A.: A Scenario-Driven Approach to Traceability. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Toronto, Canada, pp. 123–132 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egyed, A., Grünbacher, P.: Identifying Requirements Conflicts and Cooperation: How Quality Attributes and Automated Traceability Can Help. IEEE Software (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freimut, B., Punter, T., Biffl, S., Ciolkowski, M.: State-of-the-Art in Empirical Studies, Report: ViSEK/007/E, Fraunhofer Inst. of Experimental Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A.: Sweetening WordNet with DOLCE. AI Magazine  24(4), 13–24 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.C.W.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 94–101 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heitmeyer, C.L., Jeffords, R.D., Labaw, B.G.: Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. In: 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1995), York, England (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, J.: A Keyphrase Based Traceability Scheme. IEEE Colloquium on Tools and Techniques for Maintaining Traceability During Design, 2-1-2/4 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaindl, H.: The Missing Link in Requirements Engineering. ACM SigSoft Software Engineering Notes 18(2), 30–39 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leuser, J.: Challenges for semi-automatic trace recovery in the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, TEFSE (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liddy, E.D.: Natural Language Processing, 2nd edn. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Marcel Decker, Inc., NY (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillan, C., Poshyvanyk, D., Revelle, M.: Combining textual and structural analysis of software artifacts for traceability link recovery. In: Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, TEFSE (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedrinaci, C., Domingue, J., Alves de Medeiros, A.K.: A core ontology for business process analysis. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Rijsbergen, C.J., Robertson, S.E., Porter, M.F.: New models in probabilistic information retrieval, British Library Research and Development Report, no. 5587 (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinheiro, F.A.C., Goguen, J.A.: An Object-Oriented Tool for Tracing Requirements. IEEE Software 13(2), 52–64 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rupp, C.: Requirements Engineering und –Management. Hanser (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wohlin, C., Höst, M., et al.: Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering. Journal for Information and Software Technology, 921–924 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Moser
    • 1
  • Dietmar Winkler
    • 1
  • Matthias Heindl
    • 1
  • Stefan Biffl
    • 1
  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory Software Engineering Integration for Flexible Automation Systems Institute of Software Technology and Interactive SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations