Relationship analysis in requirements engineering

Yoo, Joonhee; Catanio, Joseph T.; Paul, Ravi; Bieber, Michael

doi:10.1007/s00766-004-0205-5

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[38], Prakash and Gosain [52], and Yoo et al [62]. This subject will be addressed in our course in the form of addressing the common denominator in RE processes.…”

Section: Previous Research Concerning Requirement Weightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, we present a course for making stakeholders in requirements engineering (RE) processes aware of the relevance of importance assessment (the thinking process that they go through while assessing requirement weights) and giving them some experience with specific aspects of the importance assessment process. We also analyze the experiences of the participants in five pilot sessions. In RE instruments, elicitation of requirement weights receives much attention. However, the processes that individual stakeholders go through while assessing weights are largely ignored or seen as a 'black box'. In the course, participants gain experience with some common issues and pitfalls in assessing weights. Issues covered are: completeness and interdependence of requirements, causal relationships and the common denominator, handling 'irrational' requirements, and the meaning of 'importance' (priority). The course was given in various large organizations in the aerospace sector, and data on participants' experiences were gathered by means of a standardized questionnaire. The extent to which the participants claimed they learned about the relevance of importance assessment and about how to perform it were, respectively, 2.89 and 2.72 on a scale from 1 to 5. The relevance of the various assignments was rated between 3.74 and 4.00 on a 1-5 scale. Our study indicates that the course, or elements of it, should be embedded in an organization's work practices in order to achieve lasting effects.

show abstract

“…[38], Prakash and Gosain [52], and Yoo et al [62]. This subject will be addressed in our course in the form of addressing the common denominator in RE processes.…”

Section: Previous Research Concerning Requirement Weightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Semantic relations (relationships in the SE vocabulary) are a key component of vital design artefacts such as Entity-Relationship (E-R) models and object-class diagrams (OCD). However, they only capture a limited set of relationships, leaving much of the domain's relationship structure out of the design [5].…”

Section: Semantic Relations In Software Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Relation Modeling and Representation for Problem-Solving Ontology-based Linguistic Resources: Issues and Proposals

Álvarez¹,

Vaquero²,

Sáenz³

et al. 2007

Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic relations are an important element in the construction of ontologies and models of problem domains. Nevertheless, they remain underspecified. This is a pervasive problem in Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, we find semantic links that can have multiple interpretations in ontologies that support information systems, semantic data models with abstractions that are not enough to capture the relation richness of problem domains, and improperly structured taxonomies. However, if provided with precise semantics, some of these problems can be avoided, and meaningful operations can be performed on them. In this paper we present some insightful issues about the modeling and representation of semantic relations that include the available taxonomy structuring methodologies as well as the initiatives aiming to provide relations with precise semantics. Furthermore, we explain and propose the notion of control and verification of relations as a means to properly structure ontologies.

show abstract

“…Processes have been proposed to support creative thinking about requirements [98] and capture stakeholder views [32,39]. Comprehensive rigorous processes for requirements definition have been suggested, for example, in [158] and [6].…”

Section: Requirements Capture and Concept Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Elicitation for Reliable System Design

Bedford¹,

Quigley²,

Walls³

2006

Statist. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the role of expert judgement to support reliability assessments within the systems engineering design process. Generic design processes are described to give the context and a discussion is given about the nature of the reliability assessments required in the different systems engineering phases. It is argued that, as far as meeting reliability requirements is concerned, the whole design process is more akin to a statistical control process than to a straightforward statistical problem of assessing an unknown distribution. This leads to features of the expert judgement problem in the design context which are substantially different from those seen, for example, in risk assessment. In particular, the role of experts in problem structuring and in developing failure mitigation options is much more prominent, and there is a need to take into account the reliability potential for future mitigation measures downstream in the system life cycle. An overview is given of the stakeholders typically involved in large scale systems engineering design projects, and this is used to argue the need for methods that expose potential judgemental biases in order to generate analyses that can be said to provide rational consensus about uncertainties. Finally, a number of key points are developed with the aim of moving toward a framework that provides a holistic method for tracking reliability assessment through the design process.Comment: This paper commented in: [arXiv:0708.0285], [arXiv:0708.0287], [arXiv:0708.0288]. Rejoinder in [arXiv:0708.0293]. Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/088342306000000510 in the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

show abstract

Relationship analysis in requirements engineering

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

Semantic Relation Modeling and Representation for Problem-Solving Ontology-based Linguistic Resources: Issues and Proposals

Expert Elicitation for Reliable System Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About