ReusabilityofRequirementsOntologiesByRaniaAlghamdi

Outline§Introduction§RequirementsReuse§Requirementsontologies§Criteriaofreusablerequirements§Examplesofreusableontologies§Discussionandconclusion

2

Introduction§RequirementsEngineering(RE)consistsofdifferentactivities[8].

§ThemaingoalofREistotranslatetheneedsofthestakeholdersaccuratelytoproduceconciserequirementsspecification.§Thattakesaconsiderabletimeandeffort.

Elicitation Analysis Documentation Validation

Understandingtheapplicationdomain.

Dealing withrequirementsclassification,modeling,andresolvingconflicts.

Aimingtoproducerequirementsdocument(specification).

Checkingthefinaldraftofarequirementsdocument.

3

RequirementsReuseAsaresult…§RequirementsReusebecamenecessary[2-4]oTodecreasecostandtime-to-market.oTobenefitfromtheotherexistinghigh-qualityrequirements.

§GoldinandBerry[3]found:oReusingisdifficultsinceitdependsonchoosingthecorrectcomponentstoreuse.oThosecomponentsshouldbeinitially“writtentobereusable”.oWorkingonrequirementsreuseisworthitandpaysoff.

4

RequirementsReuse§AccordingtoChernak’s globalonlineITsurvey[4]

5

Yes59%

No41%

Didyoureuserequirementsonyourlatestprojects?

25% Incomplete

Unstructured21%Outdated

19%

Reuseisnotimportant

18%

Reuseisnotsupported

12%

5%other

Whataretheobstaclesforadoptingrequirementsreuse?

RequirementsReuseApproachesappliedrequirementsreusesuccessfully

6

• Itdependsonexploitingthecommonalitiesandthevariationsofallproductsintheline[5].

• Itfocusesondevelopingafamilyofproducts[3].• Itisconformedtolarge-sizedsoftwareprojects[2].

SoftwareProductLine(SPL)

• Asetofrelatedandsortedrequirements.• Requirementsareclassifiedbasedontheirfunctionsandpriorities.

• Moresuitabletobeappliedinsmall-sizedprojects[2].

SoftwareRequirementsCatalog(SRC)

• Itisusedtomaketheknowledgemoresharableandreusable.• Itisusedforlargetosmallscalesoftwareproject.

Requirementsontologies

Requirements ontologies

SomeREchallenges Benefitsofrequirementsontology

Stakeholdersmaygiveincompleterequirements.

Usingrequirementsontologyforspecificdomainhelptocapturethemissingrequirementssuch asthenon-functionalrequirements[14].

Stakeholdersmayprovideredundantrequirementswithdifferentvocabularies(ambiguity).

Ontologyisusedto restrictvocabularyinterpretationsandthesemanticrelationsbetweendifferententities[8].

Requirementschangecontinuously. Theexplicitrelationsbetweenentitiesintheontologyhelptotraceanychanges[8].

7

TheconceptofontologyisusedtoreducethenegativeeffectsofREchallenges

Requirements ontologies§AccordingtothesystematicreviewofDermeval et.al[1]oontologieshavebeenusedtoaccomplishdifferentREactivities.otheyfoundempiricalevidencesoftheiradvantages.o34%ofthestudiesreusedexistingontologiesintheircontributionstoachievevariouspurposes.oTheydidnotstudythereusabilitycriteriaofthosereusedontologiesandtheymentionedthispartbriefly.

8

Requirements ontologies§Differentstudiesreusedontologiesfordifferentpurposes[1]:oSomestudiesreused:

• Genericrequirementsengineeringontologies• Domainknowledgeontologies• Securityontologies• Goal-orientedrequirementsengineering(GORE)ontology• Businessontology• Scenario-extendedproblemontology

§Requirementsontologiesaregenerallynotwidelyreused.

§Blomqvist et.alrelatedthattothepoorlydesignedanddocumentedontologies[6].

9

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

10

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

1.Usingthetechnicalcontentsofworldwideacceptedstandardsofa

particulardomainprovidestheguidelinestoguaranteethequalityofontology.

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

11

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

2.Itmeansthereisnoconflictsbetween

differentrequirementsspecifications[7].

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

12

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

3.Theontologyistraceableifthereisexplicitlinksbetweenrequirementsthatdefinethedependencyrelationships

betweentherequirementsinbidirectionalmanner(back

andforth)[7][8]

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

13

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

4.Itmeansalltheparties(analystsandstakeholders)agreeonthesamemeaning.

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

14

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

5.Theontologyshouldbewritteninaclearandwidelyknownlanguage.Example:

(OWL)ANDthedocumentationshouldbeeasytounderstandby

analystsandstakeholders.

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

15

1.usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

6.Allthenecessaryrequirementsareincluded.

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteria ofreusablerequirements

16

1.Usingwell-knownstandards

2.Beingconsistent

3.BeingTraceable

5.Usingclearimplementation

anddocumentation

7.Usingpriorityranking

7.Eachrequirementhasapriorityandanexpectedfrequencyofchanges.

6.Beingcomplete

4.Beingunambiguous

Criteriaofreusableontologies§Whichrequirementsontologieshavebeenreusedinotherstudies?§Whatarethecriteriaofthereusedrequirementsontologies?

17

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(1)§Dzung andOhnishi[11]

18

Contribution anontology-basedtoolwhich extractstheinitialrequirementsfromthewrittenstakeholders’interviews.

Requirementstype

functional requirements

Scope Small

REactivity Elicitation

ReusabilityCriteria

-consistent-traceable-unambiguous-welldocumented-implementedinwellknownlanguage(OWL)

Reusedin Study in[12]reusedthesameontology-basedtoolforeducationmanagementsystem.

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(1)

19

§Predefinedreasoningrulesof[11]

1. Complementaryrule∀x∃y.(Complementary(x,y)∧(y∈Req))→(x∈Req)

2.Supplementaryrule∀x∃y.(Supplementary(x,y)∧(x∈Req))→(y∈Req)

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(1)

20

3.AggregationRule∀x∃y.(Aggregation(x,y)∧(y∈Req))→(x∈Req)

4.Inheritancerule∀y∃x.(Inheritance(x,y)∧(x∈Req))→(y∈Req)

§Predefinedreasoningrulesof[11]

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(1)

21

5.Inconsistencyrule∀x∃y.(Inconsistency(x,y)∧(x∈Req)∧(y∈Req))→((x∉Req)∧(y∈Req))∨ ((x∈Req)∧(y∉Req))

6.Redundancyrule∀x∃y.(Redundancy(x,y)∧(x∈Req)∧(y∈Req))→((x∉Req)∧(y∈Req))∨ ((x∈Req)∧(y∉Req))

§Predefinedreasoningrulesof[11]

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(1)

22

Anexampleofrequirementsontologyforanonlinestoresystem[11]

Anexampleofcheckingrequirementswithontology[11]

1

23

4

Examplesofreusablerequirementsontologies(2)§Wangetal.[9]

23

Contribution AQoS OntologyCooperatedwithFeatureModels

Requirementstype

Non-functional requirements

Scope Large/industrial

REactivity Elicitation

ReusabilityCriteria

-usingISO/IEC9126qualitymodel-usingdifferentpriorities-welldocumented-implementedinwellknownlanguage

Reusedin The modelwasreusedtotallyin[10]forrequirementselicitation

DiscussionandConclusion§Mostofthereusedontologiesarefunctionalrequirementsontologies.§Requirementsontologiesaremostlyreusedforrequirementselicitationpurpose.§Someauthorsreusedtheirownrequirementsontologiesintheirotherworks.§Reusingrequirementsontologiesisnotpopular.§Requirementsontologiescouldbereusedpartiallyortotally.§Mostoftheauthorsstatedthatcomparingtothegainedadvantages,theeffortandtimespentonreusingtheontologiesweresmall.

24

References1.Dermeval,D.,Vilela,J.,Bittencourt,I.I.,Castro,J.,Isotani,S.,Brito,P.,&Silva,A.(2016).Applicationsofontologiesinrequirementsengineering:asystematicreviewoftheliterature. RequirementsEngineering, 21(4),405-437.

2.Pacheco,C.,Garcia,I.,Calvo-Manzano,J.A.,&Arcilla,M.(2017).Reusingfunctionalsoftwarerequirementsinsmall-sizedsoftwareenterprises:amodelorientedtothecatalogofrequirements. RequirementsEngineering, 22(2),275-287.

3.Goldin,L.,&Berry,D.M.(2015).Reuseofrequirementsreducedtimetomarketatoneindustrialshop:acasestudy. RequirementsEngineering, 20(1),23-44.

4.Chernak,Y.(2012,June).Requirementsreuse:thestateofthepractice.In SoftwareScience,TechnologyandEngineering(SWSTE),2012IEEEInternationalConferenceon (pp.46-53).IEEE.

5.Pohl,K.,Böckle,G.,&vanDerLinden,F.J.(2005). Softwareproductlineengineering:foundations,principlesandtechniques.SpringerScience&BusinessMedia.

6.Blomqvist,E.,Hitzler,P.,Janowicz,K.,Krisnadhi,A.,Narock,T.,&Solanki,M.(2016).ConsiderationsregardingOntologyDesignPatterns. SemanticWeb, 7(1),1-7.

7.Lauesen,S.(2001).SoftwareRequirements:StylesandTechniques

8.deAlmeidaFalbo,R.,&Nardi,J.C.(2008).Evolvingasoftwarerequirementsontology.In XXXIVConferenciaLatinoamericana deInformática–CLEI2008(pp.300-309).

25

References9.Wang,T.,Si,Y.,Xuan,X.,Wang,X.,Yang,X.,Li,S.,&Kavs,A.J.(2010,November).AQoS ontologycooperatedwithfeaturemodelsfornon-functionalrequirementselicitation.In ProceedingsoftheSecondAsia-PacificSymposiumonInternetware (p.17).ACM.

10.Wohlrab,R.,deGooijer,T.,Koziolek,A.,&Becker,S.(2014,August).ExperienceofpragmaticallycombiningREmethodsforperformancerequirementsinindustry.In RequirementsEngineeringConference(RE),2014IEEE22ndInternational (pp.344-353).IEEE.

11.Dzung,D.V.,&Ohnishi,A.(2009,November).Ontology-basedreasoninginrequirementselicitation.In SoftwareEngineeringandFormalMethods,2009SeventhIEEEInternationalConferenceon (pp.263-272).IEEE.

12.Dzung,D.V.,&Ohnishi,A.(2012,December).Averificationmethodofelicitedsoftwarerequirementsusingrequirementsontology.In SoftwareEngineeringConference(APSEC),201219thAsia-Pacific (Vol.1,pp.553-558).IEEE. .

26

Thankyou,,,Anyquestions?

27