2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29983-5_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What Quality Attributes Can We Find in Product Backlogs? A Machine Learning Perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies were authored/co-authored by the same person, indicating the existence of an active research group in this field. [33] Identify ambiguous user stories [34] Define and measure quality factors from user stories [4], [35] Obtain a security defect reporting form from user stories [36] Indicate duplication between user stories [37] Generate model/artifact Generate a test case from user stories [38]- [43] Generate a class diagram from user stories [44], [45] Generate a sequence diagram from user stories [46] Generate a use case diagram from user stories [47]- [49] Generate a use case scenario from user stories [50] Generate a multi-agent system from user stories [51] Generate a source code from user stories [40] Generate a BPMN diagram from user stories [40] Identify the key abstractions To understand the semantic connection in user stories [52]- [54] Identify topics and summarizing user stories [55], [56] Construct a goal model from a set of user stories. [57] Define ontology for user stories [58] Extract the conceptual model of user stories [59], [60] To find the linguistic structure of user stories [61] Prioritizing and estimation of user story complexity [62], [63] Extracting user stories from text [64]- [66] Trace links between model/NL requirements Tracking the development status of user stories from software artifacts [67] Identify the type of dependency of user stories [68] Traceability user stories and software artifact [69]…”
Section: Fig 4 Authorship Distribution Per Countrymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Some studies were authored/co-authored by the same person, indicating the existence of an active research group in this field. [33] Identify ambiguous user stories [34] Define and measure quality factors from user stories [4], [35] Obtain a security defect reporting form from user stories [36] Indicate duplication between user stories [37] Generate model/artifact Generate a test case from user stories [38]- [43] Generate a class diagram from user stories [44], [45] Generate a sequence diagram from user stories [46] Generate a use case diagram from user stories [47]- [49] Generate a use case scenario from user stories [50] Generate a multi-agent system from user stories [51] Generate a source code from user stories [40] Generate a BPMN diagram from user stories [40] Identify the key abstractions To understand the semantic connection in user stories [52]- [54] Identify topics and summarizing user stories [55], [56] Construct a goal model from a set of user stories. [57] Define ontology for user stories [58] Extract the conceptual model of user stories [59], [60] To find the linguistic structure of user stories [61] Prioritizing and estimation of user story complexity [62], [63] Extracting user stories from text [64]- [66] Trace links between model/NL requirements Tracking the development status of user stories from software artifacts [67] Identify the type of dependency of user stories [68] Traceability user stories and software artifact [69]…”
Section: Fig 4 Authorship Distribution Per Countrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five studies reported methods for finding defects or improving the quality of user stories. The category is meant to serve four purposes: (a) providing recommendations on incomplete requirements based on the knowledge gap [33]; (b) identifying ambiguous user stories [34]; (c) defining and measuring quality factors from user stories [4], [35]; (d) obtaining a security defect reporting form from the user stories [36] and (e) indicating duplications between user stories [37]. Bäumer and Geierhos [33] identified incomplete requirements with preprocessing, lemmatization, and POS tagging.…”
Section: ) Discovering Defectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Normally software requirements are of two types, namely, FRs and NFRs. e research work on the difference between FRs and NFRs is defined and well known; however, the automatic identification and classification of the software requirements stated in different natural language is still a huge challenge [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%