A Systematic Approach to Generate and Clarify Consistent Requirements

Hagal, Mohamed A.; Alshareef, Sohil F.

doi:10.1109/icitcs.2013.6717793

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns that are part of the crosscutting relationship must be investigated to validate the relationship and the integrity of the aspect through inspecting the concerns using a checklist that contains quality questions aimed at evaluating the completeness and consistency, i.e., logical and grammatical consistency [43]. This activity helps to ensure that concerns and requirements have been extracted well and are ready to be moved to the next stage.…”

Section: Activity 3: Evaluate Concerns Correctness and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Through the investigation described in [3], it is noticed that almost all the approaches focus on identifying crosscutting concerns as well as representing them either using graphical models, XML schema, templates or text-based representation. Therefore, the resulting artefacts from the requirements phase must be validated before moving to other development stages to reduce extra work and effort caused by missing information and unintentionally overlooked inconsistency rules [43]. In addition, the validation can be either dynamic or static.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validation in requirements engineering is the process to eliminate the conflicts among requirements in SRS [1][2] [41]. Besides, it relates to the analysis since it is involved with detecting problems associated with the SRS, i.e., inconsistencies, incompleteness and ambiguities [2] [43]. Inconsistent requirements are requirements that are stated and described differently at different places in SRS, whereas ambiguous requirements referred to as one requirement has multiple perceptions and incomplete requirement, which refers to a requirement that does not convey a complete and meaningful requirement [43] [44].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Framework for Aspectual Requirements Validation: an Experimental Study

Maatuk¹,

Alshareef²,

Abdelaziz³

2021

IJSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Requirements engineering is a discipline of software engineering that is concerned with the identification and handling of user and system requirements. Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering (AORE) extends the existing requirements engineering approaches to cope with the issue of tangling and scattering resulted from crosscutting concerns. Crosscutting concerns are considered as potential aspects and can lead to the phenomena “tyranny of the dominant decomposition”. Requirements-level aspects are responsible for producing scattered and tangled descriptions of requirements in the requirements document. Validation of requirements artefacts is an essential task in software development. This task ensures that requirements are correct and valid in terms of completeness and consistency, hence, reducing the development cost, maintenance and establish an approximately correct estimate of effort and completion time of the project. In this paper, we present a validation framework to validate the aspectual requirements and the crosscutting relationship of concerns that are resulted from the requirements engineering phase. The proposed framework comprises a high-level and low-level validation to implement on software requirements specification (SRS). The high-level validation validates the concerns with stakeholders, whereas the low-level validation validates the aspectual requirement by requirements engineers and analysts using a checklist. The approach has been evaluated using an experimental study on two AORE approaches. The approaches are viewpoint-based called AORE with ArCaDe and lexical analysis based on Theme/Doc approach. The results obtained from the study demonstrate that the proposed framework is an effective validation model for AORE artefacts.

show abstract

Section: Activity 3: Evaluate Concerns Correctness and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%