Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ontology-based multiperspective requirements traceability framework

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large-scaled software development inevitably involves a group of stakeholders, each of whom may express their requirements differently in their own terminology and representation depending on their perspectives or perceptions of their shared problems. In view of that, the heterogeneity must be well handled and resolved in tracing and managing changes of such requirements. This paper presents our multiperspective requirements traceability (MUPRET) framework which deploys ontology as a knowledge management mechanism to intervene mutual “understanding” without restricting the freedom in expressing requirements differently. Ontology matching is applied as a reasoning mechanism in automatically generating traceability relationships. The relationships are identified by deriving semantic analogy of ontology concepts representing requirements elements. The precision and recall of traceability relationships generated by the framework are verified by comparing with a set of traceability relationships manually identified by users as a proof-of-concept of this framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (1995) Guide to the Software Requirements Definition Phase. ESA PSS-05-03, European Space Agency (ESA), Issue 1, Revision 1

  2. (1998) IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. IEEE Std 830-1998, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

  3. SE tools taxonomy—requirements traceability tools. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). http://www.incose.org/productspubs/products/setools/tooltax/reqtrace_tools.html. Accessed 22 Sep 2004

  4. The Stanford parser: a statistical parser (version 1.6). Stanford University. http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/lex-parser.shtml. Accessed 18 Aug 2007

  5. Antoniol G, Canfora G, Casazza G et al (2002) Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(10): 970–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Assawamekin N, Sunetnanta T, Pluempitiwiriyawej C (2008) Automated multiperspective requirements traceability using ontology matching technique. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE 2008), Hotel Sofitel, Redwood City, San Francisco Bay, CA, USA, pp 460–465

  7. Assawamekin N, Sunetnanta T, Pluempitiwiriyawej C (2008) Resolving multiperspective requirements traceability through ontology integration. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE international conference on semantic computing (ICSC 2008), Santa Clara Marriot Hotel, Santa Clara, CA, USA, pp 362–369

  8. Assawamekin N, Sunetnanta T, Pluempitiwiriyawej C (2009) MUPRET: an ontology-driven traceability tool for multiperspective requirements artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE/ACIS international conference on computer and information science (ICIS 2009), Pine City Hotel, Shanghai, China, pp 943–948

  9. Berre DL (2006) A Satisfiability Library for Java. http://www.sat4j.org. Accessed 15 June 2006

  10. Borst WN (1997) Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse. Doctoral Dissertation, Enschede, NL-Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Tweenty

  11. Caralt JC, Kim JW (2007) Ontology driven requirements query. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2007)

  12. Cleland-Huang J, Chang CK, Christensen M (2003) Event-based traceability for managing evolutionary change. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(9): 796–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleland-Huang J, Settimi R, Duan C et al (2005) Utilizing supporting evidence to improve dynamic requirements traceability. In: Proceedings of the 2005 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (RE’05), pp 135–144

  14. de Bruijn J (2004) Semantic integration of disparate data sources in the COG project. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal, pp 9–14

  15. de Marneffe M-C, MacCartney B, Manning CD (2006) Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2006)

  16. Denny M (2002) Ontology building: a survey of editing tools. http://www.xml.com/2002/11/06/Ontology_Editor_Survey.html, Accessed 6 Nov 2002

  17. Egyed A (2005) Supporting software understanding with automated requirements traceability. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng (IJSEKE) 15(5): 783–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellson J, Gansner ER, Koutsofios E et al (2003) Graphviz and dynagraph—static and dynamic graph drawing tools. In: Graph drawing software. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–148

  19. Fowler J, Perry B, Nodine M et al (1999) Agent-based semantic interoperability in InfoSleuth. SIGMOD Rec 28(1): 60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gansner E, Koutsofios E, North S (2006) Drawing graphs with dot. http://www.graphviz.org. Accessed 26 Jan 2006

  21. Giunchiglia F, Yatskevich M, Shvaiko P (2007) Semantic matching: algorithms and implementation. J Data Semant IX:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gotel OCZ, Finkelstein ACW (1994) An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE 1994), Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, pp 94–101

  23. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2): 199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grunbacher P, Egyed A, Medvidovic N (2004) Reconciling software requirements and architectures with intermediate models. Softw Syst Model (SoSyM) 3(3): 235–253

    Google Scholar 

  25. Haase P, Siebes R, Harmelen Fv (2008) Expertise-based peer selection in peer-to-peer networks. Knowl Inf Syst 15(1): 75–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamdan K, Khatib HE (2006) A software cost ontology system for assisting estimation of software project effort for use with case-based reasoning. In: Innovations in information technology, pp 1–5

  27. Harmain HM, Gaizauskas R (2000) CM-Builder: an automated NL-based case tool. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2000), Grenoble, France, pp 45–53

  28. Harmain HM, Gaizauskas R (2003) CM-Builder: a natural language-based CASE tool for object-oriented analysis. Autom Softw Eng (ASE) 10(2): 157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayes JH, Dekhtyar A, Sundaram SK (2005) Improving after-the-fact tracing and mapping: supporting software quality predictions. IEEE Softw 22(6): 30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hayes JH, Dekhtyar A, Sundaram SK (2006) Advancing candidate link generation for requirements tracing: the study of methods. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(1): 4–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heindl M, Biffl S (2005) A case study on value-based requirements tracing. In: Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering (ESEC-FSE 2005), Lisbon, Portugal, pp 60–69

  32. Hepp M, Leukel J, Schmitz V (2007) A quantitative analysis of product categorization standards: content, coverage, and maintenance of eCl@ss, UNSPSC, eOTD, and the RosettaNet technical dictionary. Knowl Inf Syst 13(1): 77–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jung JJ (2009) Consensus-based evaluation framework for distributed information retrieval systems. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2): 199–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jurisica I, Mylopoulos J, Yu E (2004) Ontologies for knowledge management: an information systems perspective. Knowl Inf Syst 6(4): 380–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaindl H (1993) The missing link in requirements engineering. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 18(2): 30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaiya H, Saeki M (2005) Ontology based requirements analysis: lightweight semantic processing approach. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on quality software (QSIC 2005), pp 223–230

  37. Lin J, Lin CC, Cleland-Huang J et al (2006) Poirot: a distributed tool supporting enterprise-wide automated traceability. In: 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE 2006), pp 356–357

  38. Marcus A, Maletic JI (2003) Recovering documentation-to-source-code traceability links using latent semantic indexing. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2003), pp 125–135

  39. Marcus MP, Santorini B, Marcinkiewicz MA (1993) Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Assoc Comput Linguist 19(2): 313–330

    Google Scholar 

  40. McGuinness DL, Fikes R, Rice J et al (2000) An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2000), Breckenridge, Colorado

  41. Mena E, Illarramendi A, Kashyap V et al (2000) OBSERVER: an approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies. Distrib Parallel Databases 8(2): 223–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Michelizzi J (2004) Text-Similarity-0.02. http://search.cpan.org/~jasonm/Text-Similarity-0.02. Accessed 16 October 2004

  43. Miller GA (1990) WordNet: an on-line lexical database. Int J Lexicogr 3(4): 235–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Miller GA (1995) WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM 38(11): 39–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mitra P, Wiederhold G (2001) An algebra for semantic interoperability of information sources. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd international conference on bioinformatics and bioengineering, Bethesda, MD, USA, pp 174–182

  46. Noll RP, Ribeiro MB (2007) Enhancing traceability using ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2007), Seoul, Korea, pp 1496–1497

  47. Noll RP, Ribeiro MB (2007) Ontological traceability over the unified process. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual IEEE international conference and workshops on the engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS 2007), pp 249–255

  48. Noy NF, McGuinness DL (2001) Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report KSL-01-05, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory

  49. Noy NF, Musen MA (1999) SMART: Automated support for ontology merging and alignment. In: Twelfth Banff workshop on knowledge acquisition, modeling, and management, Banff, Alberta, Canada

  50. Patwardhan S (2006) WordNet-Similarity-1.04. http://search.cpan.org/~sid/WordNet-Similarity-1.04. Accessed 13 Dec 2006

  51. Pinheiro FAC, Goguen JA (1996) An object-oriented tool for tracing requirements. IEEE Softw 13(2): 52–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pinto HS, Martins JP (2004) Ontologies: how can they be built. Knowl Inf Syst 6(4): 441–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Preece A, Hui K, Gray A et al (2001) KRAFT: an agent architecture for knowledge fusion. Int J Coop Inf Syst 10(1–2): 171–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ramesh B, Dhar V (1992) Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(6): 498–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rennie J (2006) WordNet-QueryData-1.45. http://search.cpan.org/~jrennie/WordNet-QueryData-1.45. Accessed 17 Oct 2006

  56. Schmid H (1994) Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In: Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing, Manchester, UK

  57. Schmid H (1994) TreeTagger—a language independent part-of-speech tagger. University of Stuttgart, Germany. http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/corplex/TreeTagger

  58. Settimi R, Cleland-Huang J, Khadra OB et al (2004) Supporting software evolution through dynamically retrieving traces to UML artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on principles of software evolution (IWPSE 2004), pp 49–54

  59. Spanoudakis G, Finkelstein A, Till D (1999) Overlaps in requirements engineering. Autom Softw Eng 6(2): 171–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spanoudakis G, Zisman A, Perez-Minana E et al (2004) Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations. J Syst Softw 72(2): 105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25: 161–197

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. van Rijsbergen CJ (1979) Information retrieval. 2nd edn. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wielemaker J (1990–2007) SWI-Prolog version 5.6.30. University of Amsterdam. http://www.swi-prolog.org

  64. Wongthongtham P, Chang E, Cheah C (2005) Software engineering sub-ontology for specific software development. In: Proceedings of the 2005 29th annual IEEE/NASA software engineering workshop (SEW 2005), pp 27–33

  65. Yang H, Cui Z, O’Brien P (1999) Extracting ontologies from legacy systems for understanding and re-engineering. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third annual international conference on computer software and applications, pp 21–26

  66. Yu WD (1994) Verifying software requirements: a requirement tracing methodology and its software tool—RADIX. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 12(2): 234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang Y, Witte R, Rilling J et al (2006) An ontology-based approach for traceability recovery. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on metamodels, schemas, grammars, and ontologies for reverse engineering (ATEM 2006), Genoa, pp 36–43

  68. Zou X, Settimi R, Cleland-Huang J (2006) Phrasing in dynamic requirements trace retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC 2006), pp 265–272

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand

    Namfon Assawamekin, Thanwadee Sunetnanta & Charnyote Pluempitiwiriyawej

  2. School of Science, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand

    Namfon Assawamekin

Authors
  1. Namfon Assawamekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thanwadee Sunetnanta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charnyote Pluempitiwiriyawej
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Namfon Assawamekin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Assawamekin, N., Sunetnanta, T. & Pluempitiwiriyawej, C. Ontology-based multiperspective requirements traceability framework. Knowl Inf Syst 25, 493–522 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-009-0259-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-009-0259-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation