skip to main content
article

Management of Implicit Requirements Data in Large SRS Documents: Taxonomy and Techniques

Published:29 July 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Implicit Requirements (IMR) identification is part of the Requirements Engineering (RE) phase in Software Engineering during which data is gathered to create SRS (Software Requirements Specifications) documents. As opposed to explicit requirements clearly stated, IMRs constitute subtle data and need to be inferred. Research has shown that IMRs are crucial to the success of software development. Many software systems can encounter failures due to lack of IMR data management. SRS documents are large, often hundreds of pages, due to which manually identifying IMRs by human software engineers is not feasible. Moreover, such data is evergrowing due to the expansion of software systems. It is thus important to address the crucial issue of IMR data management. This article presents a survey on IMRs in SRS documents with the definition and overview of IMR data, detailed taxonomy of IMRs with explanation and examples, practices in managing IMR data, and tools for IMR identification. In addition to reviewing classical and state-of-the-art approaches, we highlight trends and challenges and point out open issues for future research. This survey article is interesting based on data quality, hidden information retrieval, veracity and salience, and knowledge discovery from large textual documents with complex heterogeneous data.

References

  1. D. M. Fernandez, S. Wagner, M. Kalinowski, M. Felderer, P. Mafra, A. Vetro, T. Conte, M.-T. Christiansson, D. Greer, C. Lassenius, et al. Naming the pain in requirements engineering. Empirical software engineering, 22(5):2298--2338, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. O. Daramola, T. Moser, G. Sindre, and S. Bi. Managing implicit requirements using semantic casebased reasoning. In REFSQ, Springer LNCS, pages 7915:172--178, 03 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. O. Emebo and A. Varde. Early identification of implicit requirements with the cotir approach using common sense, ontology and text mining. Technical report, Fulbright Scholarship Program, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Montclair State Univ., NJ, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Dalpiaz. Pinpointing ambiguity and incompleteness in requirements engineering via information visualization and NLP. In REFSQ, pages 119--135, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. G. Spanoudakis. Analogical reuse of requirements specifications: A computational model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 10(4):281--305, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Umber, I. S. Bajwa, and M. A. Naeem. NL-based automated software requirements elicitation and specification. In Adv. in Comp.and Communications ACC, Springer, pages 191: 30--39, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. U. S. Shah and D. C. Jinwala. Resolving ambiguities in natural language software requirements: A comprehensive survey. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(5):1--7, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. O. Emebo and A. Varde. Common sense knowledge, ontology and text mining for implicit requirements. In CSREA Press Intl. Conf. on Data Mining, pages 146- 152, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. O. Emebo, V. K. Anu, and A. S. Varde. Identifying implicit requirements in SRS big data. In IEEE Intl. Conf. on Big Data, pages 6169--6171, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Provost and T. Fawcett. Data Science for Business: What you need to know about data mining and dataanalytic thinking. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Bhuiyan and M. A. Hasan. Interactive knowledge discovery from hidden data through sampling of frequent patterns. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 9(4):205--229, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Marconi, M. Pistore, and P. Traverso. Implicit vs. explicit data-flow requirements in web service composition goals. In Intl. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing, ICSOC, pages 459--464, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Arasu, S. Chaudhuri, Z. Chen, K. Ganjam, R. Kaushik, and V. R. Narasayya. Towards a domain independent platform for data cleaning. IEEE Data Eng. Bulletin, 34(3):43--50, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. K. Popat, S. Mukherjee, J. Strotgen, and G. Weikum. Credeye: A credibility lens for analyzing and explaining misinformation. In The Web Conference WWW Comp. Vol., pages 155--158, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Ponza, L. D. Corro, and G. Weikum. Facts that matter. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. S. Ghosh, S. Razniewski, and G. Weikum. Uncovering hidden semantics of set information in knowledge bases. Journal of Web Semantics, 64:100588, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. F. M. Suchanek, A. S. Varde, R. Nayak, and P. Senellart. The hidden web, XML and the semantic web: scientific data management perspectives. In EDBT Intl. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, pages 534--537. ACM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Qiu, B. Xu, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Shen, G. de Melo, C. Long, and X. Li. Easyaug: An automatic textual data augmentation platform for classification tasks. In The Web Conference, WWW Comp., 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. T. Kraska, U. F. Minhas, T. Neumann, O. Papaemmanouil, J. M. Patel, C. Re, and M. Stonebraker. Ml-in-databases: Assessment and prognosis. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 44(1):3, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Yague, P. Rodrguez, and J. Garbajosa. Optimizing agile processes by early identification of hidden requirements. In International Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering, XP. Springer, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. Adu. Inadequate requirements engineering process: A key factor for poor software development in developing nations: A case study. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, IJCIT, 01 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Z. Kurtanovic and W. Maalej. Automatically classifying functional and non-functional requirements using supervised machine learning. In Intl.Requirements Engineering Conf., RE, pages 490--495, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. M. Riaz, J. Slankas, J. T. King, and L. A. Williams. Using templates to elicit implied security requirements from functional requirements - a controlled experiment. In ACM-IEEE Intl. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering & Measurement, ESEM, page.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P. M. J. A. Raul Minon, Lourdes Moreno. An approach to the integration of accessibility requirements into a user interface development method. Science of Computer Programming, Elsevier, 86(16):58--73, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. S.-J. H. Jie-Cherng Chen. An empirical analysis of the impact of software development problem factors on software maintainability. The Journal of Systems and Software, JSS, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. B. Penzenstadler. Towards a definition of sustainability in and for software engineering. In ACM Symp. on Applied Computing, SAC, pages 28:1183- 1185, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. O. Emebo, O. Daramola, and C. K. Ayo. Promirar: Tool for identifying and managing implicit requirements in SRS documents. In WCECS Conference, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Hey, J. Linsey, A. Agogino, and K. Wood. Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journ. of Engineering Education, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. M. Claypool, P. Le, M. Wased, and D. Brown. Implicit interest indicators. In Intl. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. T. Arts, M. Dorigatti, and S. Tonetta. Making implicit safety requirements explicit - an autosar safety case. In SAFECOMP, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. E. Onyeka. A process framework for managing implicit requirements using analogy-based reasoning. IEEE RCIS, pages 1--5, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Binkhonain, Manal, and Liping Zhao. "A Review of Machine Learning Algorithms for Identification and Classification of Non-Functional Requirements." Expert Systems with Applications: X, vol. 1, 12 Mar. 2019, p. 100001., doi:10.1016/j.eswax.2019.10000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. O. Emebo, A. Varde, V. Anu, N. Tandon, and O. Daramola. Using commonsense knowledge and text mining for implicit requirements localization. In IEEE Intl. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI, pages 935--940, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. R. Ellis-Braithwaite. Analysing the assumed benefits of software requirements. arXiv:1305.3853, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. "Asif, Muhammad, et al. "Annotation of Software Requirements Specification (SRS), Extractions of Nonfunctional Requirements, and Measurement of Their Tradeoff." IEEE Access, vol. 7, 2019, pp. 36164--36176., doi:10.1109/access.2019.2903133.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. V. Anu and A. Varde. Using commonsense knowledge and deep-learning based text mining to identify implicit software requirements. Technical report, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Montclair State Univ., NJ, July 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. A. Varde and V. Anu. An integrated architecture of deep learning based approaches to identify implicit requirements during software engineering. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Montclair State University, April 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. D. Srivastava. Towards high-quality big data: Lessons from FIT. In IEEE Intl. Conf. on Big Data, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. J. Ao, Z. Cheng, R. Chirkova, and P. G. Kolaitis. Temporal enrichment and querying of ontologycompliant data. In New Trends in Databases & Information Systems ADBIS, volume 1259, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. R. Borovica-Gajic, S. Idreos, A. Ailamaki, M. Zukowski, and C. Fraser. Smooth scan: robust access path selection without cardinality estimation. VLDB Journal, 27(4):521--545, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. W. Wang, S. S. Bhowmick, H. Li, S. R. Joty, S. Liu, and P. Chen. Towards enhancing database education: Natural language generation meets query execution plans. In ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. N. Tandon, A. S. Varde, and G. de Melo. Commonsense knowledge in machine intelligence. ACM SIGMOD Record, 46(4):49--52, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. S. Razniewski, N. Tandon, and A. S. Varde. Information to wisdom: Commonsense knowledge extraction and compilation. In ACM WSDM Intl. Conf. on Web Search and Data Mining, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader